****wit David Harrison lied, again:
> On 17 Jan 2006 06:10:58 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied, again:
>>
>>>On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison lied, again:
>>>>
>>>>>On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
>>>>>>>drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
>>>>>>>diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
>>>>>>>we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
>>>>>>>farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
>>>>>>>everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
>>>>>>>at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
>>>>>>>meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
>>>>>>>been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
>>>>>>>factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
>>>>>>>insemination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
>>>>>>>topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
>>>>>>>ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
>>>>>>>meat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
>>>>>>>they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
>>>>>>>personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
>>>>>>>times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>anyone else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
>>>>>>cage free chickens
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
>>>>>chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
>>>>
>>>>Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
>>>

>>>>It is true
>>>>that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
>>>>chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
>>>>other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
>>>
>>> Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
>>>instead of livestock, and why we should do it.
>>
>>I think we should provide decent lives for herrings, especially red
>>ones
>>so that you can continue to avoid the real issues :-)
>
>
> I do notice that you change the subject

He didn't change the subject, ****wit - you did.


>>>>>>and drink some organic milk
>>>>>
>>>>> What's that?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
>>>
>>> That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
>>>to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.
>>
>>Well if you asked a serious question than I might do that.
>
>
> I want to know what YOU consider to be organic milk.

You asked a stupid, unserious question. **** off.




>>>>>but
>>>>>it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
>>>>>to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
>>>>>is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
>>>>
>>>>Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
>>>>there would be no animals but because there would be no
>>>>animal farming.
>>>
>>> See?
>>
>>See what?
>>
>>
>>>I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
>>>the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
>>>you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.
>>
>>I care whether the animals that will get to experience life in the
>>future are treated cruelly. I don't care whether they are farmed or
>>not.
>
>
> Then we should have no problem agreeing that livestock
> lives should be given as much consideration as their deaths,

No. He just told you their lives - their "getting to
experience life" - is of no importance to him.


>>I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it.
>
>
> I don't understand why people like Leif are maniacally opposed
> giving the lives of livestock the consideration they deserve,

The *quality* of their lives, if they exist, deserves
consideration. Their basic existence - their "getting
to experience life" - deserves no consideration, ****wit.

You keep equivocating on this, ****wit, thinking no one
will notice, but we always notice, and when I do, I
beat the shit out of you.

The quality of life of livestock who come into
existence, if they do, deserves consideration. But no
consideration should be paid to the ethically
meaningless fact of their basic coming into existence -
their "getting to experience life".

Give it up, ****wit. It just won't work - not while
I'm around.


>>>>>>and our revulsion with the
>>>>>>cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
>>>>>>problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
>>>>>>wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
>>>>>>live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
>>>>>>you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
>>>>>>meat industry shills.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
>>>>>ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
>>>>>but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
>>>>>were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
>>>>>veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
>>>>>for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
>>>>>anything like that.
>>>>
>>>>Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
>>>>veg*nism?
>>>
>>> As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
>>>no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them.
>>
>>If you think that Leif and Dutch are not opposed to veg*nism then you
>>obviously don't read all of their posts.
>
>
> As yet, and always, you have failed and will fail to present any example(s),
> just as everyone else but myself has failed to do.

Wrong, ****wit. You have given no meaningful
opposition to "veganism" at all, just a stale,
incompetent restatement of the (Il)Logic of the Larder,
which is invalid.


>>>Not even Leif
>>>or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for, but
>>>I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Leif's and/or Dutch's
>>>opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.
>
>
> Quite obviously you, like they, can't do it.

You, as well as he, have seen Dutch's and my
legitimate, coherent opposition to "veganism", but
because we *also* are opposed to your "illogic of the
larder" ****wittery, you get ****y and pretend we are
"vegans". No one is fooled, ****wit - not even you.