****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:
> On 29 Jun 2006 07:27:14 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
> >> On 27 Jun 2006 11:00:14 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Spammed newsgroups removed:
> >> >
> >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
> >> >> On 26 Jun 2006 17:04:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
> >>
> >> >> >> >> I've noticed that. You also destow them for avoiding contributing
> >> >> >> >> to what I consider lives of positive value. So there's an error. You
> >> >> >> >> should have said that you hand them out for avoiding contributing
> >> >> >> >> to life--regardless of quality!!!--for animals raised for food.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No, because I don't.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then I get to keep my browny points for contributing to cage free
> >> >> >> layers and their parents, broilers and their parents, beef cattle and
> >> >> >> their parents, and turkeys and their parents. And dairy cattle.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not on my watch, you don't.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're now claiming to disagree with yourself, you need to explain
> >> >> why or how you think you do before it can be given any consideration.
> >> >
> >> >I don't disagree with myself. Not bestowing "browny points" for
> >> >avoiding
> >> >a product is not the same as bestowing "browny points" for consuming
> >> >that product.
> >>
> >> Regardless, I'll go ahead and keep mine since you handed them over
> >> to begin with.
> >
> >I never gave you those browny points, except perhaps, in your
> >imagination.
> >
> >> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What for?
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL. At this point it appears that I thanked you for lying to me.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wow...all of a sudden I get a lot of browny points. I get points for
> >> >> >> the chicken I had at lunch, plus the milk, and dairy topping on desert,
> >> >> >> plus points for the turkey sausage for dinner...cool.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >I repudiate your
> >> >> >> >> >claim to "browny points" for using the resources appropriated from
> >> >> >> >> >nature to provide life to certain animals at the expense of others.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I repudiate your repudiation.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> you also don't get out of your contribution
> >> >> >> >> >> to animal deaths simply because you purchase a few items that
> >> >> >> >> >> may not contribute to any,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I'm not claiming that I do.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You're trying to wiggle out of your use of things containing
> >> >> >> >> animal by-products, simply because you purchase a few things
> >> >> >> >> that don't. It's pathetic...but I guess you don't have any other
> >> >> >> >> choice except to just shut up and accept the fact, or apologise
> >> >> >> >> and in the future don't try to deny your contributions to it all.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I don't deny my contributions.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Many of the products I consume including
> >> >> >> >> >some of the vegan ones contribute to animal deaths.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Then we should agree that vegans contribute to the same
> >> >> >> >> deaths everyone else does except they try to avoid contributing
> >> >> >> >> to life and death for farm animals.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >They avoid (or try to) contributing to the breeding, "enslavement"* and
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >slaughter of farm animals and the collateral deaths associated with
> >> >> >> >feeding, housing, etc. Most vegans still contribute to collateral
> >> >> >> >animal
> >> >> >> >deaths associated with our modern commercial lifestyle.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >*Not that I consider "enslavement" an appropriate term when applied to
> >> >> >> >animals in this way.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No it's not. If anything, the animals probably feel more like we work
> >> >> >> for them than the other way around, in many or most cases.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >They exist to serve us, not the other way round. To pretend otherwise
> >> >> >is disingenuous.
> >> >>
> >> >> You only interpret it as pretending otherwise because of your
> >> >> ignorance and inconsideration of the animals we're discussing.
> >> >> A person who knows something about animals could easily
> >> >> understand that sometimes the animals appear to feel that humans
> >> >> work for them...quite likely because humans *do* a lot of work for them.
> >> >
> >> >Rubbish! Humans are working for themselves, using the animals
> >> >for their own ends. The fact that this means keeping the animals
> >> >fed, sheltered, etc. does not alter that fact.
> >>
> >> You're completely lost now, and no surprise because of your ignorance
> >> and inconsideration of the animals, as I pointed out. You don't even know
> >> what we're discussing any more. This particular disagreement is about how
> >> the animals perceive the situation, not about how it actually is.
> >
> >It is unlikely that animals even have the concept of master and
> >servant.
> >They perceive that they want to be outside and having been locked
> >in by humans they need humans to lock them out. They perceive
> >that their udders are uncomfortable because they have too much
> >milk in their udders. They need humans to milk them because
> >humans have removed the natural milking machine aka calf.
> >Similarly the fact that they need feeding by humans represents
> >the fact that humans are trying to raise them in something other
> >than their natural environment. Your argument is a farce.
>
> Have you spent over a hundred hours on any type of farm(s)?

You are not a farmer. You do not know farming, you do not know farm
animals.


> >> >> >> I've certainly
> >> >> >> seen horses and cattle getting pretty demanding for people to hurry up
> >> >> >> and feed them, or milk them, or let them in or out of the barn...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So having bought them up in an environment where they are unable to
> >> >> >find food, us humble servants feed them, having seperated them from
> >> >> >the calves, us humble servants milk them, having locked them up in
> >> >> >a barn, us humble servants release them. Give me a break, Harrison.
> >> >>
> >> >> You obviously haven't had the same experiences with animals that
> >> >> I have, or haven't learned anything from them if you have.
> >> >
> >> >Evasive non-answer.
> >>
> >> I pointed out facts that you're just too ignorant to comprehend, as you
> >> proved by being unable to understand the answer.
> >
> >I find it incredible that someone would try to take credit for looking
> >after animals that are dependent on them, only because the humans
> >made it so in the first place.
>
> Of course. That's because you're not capable of appreciating that
> some animals benefit from the situation.

*NO* animals "benefit" from being bred into existence, ****wit. This
is established.

You do not get moral credit for tending to animals.


> >> >> >> So your objections have been pretty much whittled down to:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't object to keeping livestock under any circumstances. What
> >> >> >I object to is your fallacious justifications for it. Exactly the same
> >> >> >can
> >> >> >be said of Leif and Dutch. Why can't you accept that
> >> >>
> >> >> The Goos agree with you. But even though you are all in agreement
> >> >> that it's wrong to kill livestock,
> >> >
> >> >None of us believe that and you know it!
> >>
> >> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> >> their deaths" - Goo
> >
> >An out of context quote you have dishonestly chosen to present
> >as his opinion.
>
> I've asked Leif to explain how he thinks he disagrees
> with himself about it,

You've whacked away at mangled statements you've slopped together,
****wit. I have never "disagreed with myself".

Everyone knows you fabricate quotes, ****wit.


> >> >> none of you have yet been able to
> >> >> explain exactly what that "wrongness" is. You "aras" have nothing
> >> >> if you can't explain that, which you can't, so you have no argument.
> >> >> That's how that works.
> >> >
> >> >I only object to keeping livestock under some circumstances.
> >> >Why do you keep pummeling a straw man even after I have
> >> >explained to you that it is a straw man?
> >>
> >> Under what conditions would you allow animals to be raised and
> >> killed for food?
> >
> >There are two considerations: 1) Are the animals treated as sentient
> >beings as opposed to merely food-processing machines? 2) Are natural
> >resources being used in an efficient, sustainable, ecologically
> >responsible fashion?
> >
> >If the answer to both questions is yes then I have no problem with it.
>
> Then you have no problem with what I suggest,

He, and everyone, has a problem with your claiming that causing the
animals to exist mitigates the moral harm YOU FEEL occurs when the
animals are killed. No mitigation takes place on that account,
****wit.


> >BTW I also advocate applying those criteria to non-animal foods.