View Single Post
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
Dutch Dutch is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Vagan question, getting started.


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:55:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>No, to the normal person your obsession with "what the animals get out of
>>it" comes across as very creepy and suspiciously self-serving. If we are
>>providing the best possible conditions that we are capable of for the
>>animals, what more can possibly benefit them?

>
> As I continue to point out and you continue to prove, you are
> incapable of considering that life can have positive value for THEM.


No I'm not, watch... Life can have a positive value for them.

>>>>>>By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
>>>>>>animals as moral bonus points
>>>>>
>>>>> You pathetically can't think of anything but yourself.
>>>>
>>>>False, I can think of the animals also.
>>>
>>> There is absolutely no evidence of that, and there probably
>>> never will be.

>>
>>There is plenty of evidence of it.

>
> There is none


Yes there is, 6 years of Google archives.

> which is why no one can present any.


We have presented countless arguments that Just as you
> don't have the dozens of arguments you claim to have, you have
> no evidence that you can think of the animals. None. I don't either,
> so there won't be any. I was able to help you out with your last
> complete failing and at least got you up to 3 out of your dishonest
> claim of dozens, but this time there's just no evidence at all. Now
> if you want evidence that you can NOT, that's easier. In fact you
> just got through saying doing so "comes across as very creepy" to
> you, and now your amusingly trying to boast that there's plenty of
> evidence of you doing it. You're such a confused fool I often end
> up feeling sorry for you, even though your bewilderment appears
> to be entirely caused by the purity of your own selfishness.


All bullshit. You get no credit for livestock getting to experience life
****wit.

> Since we're on this, let's test your honesty...unfortunately only
> to see you fail of course. Even though you'll fail though, try to
> explain why it is that you want to create the impression that there
> "is plenty of evidence of" you considering the animals, when you
> also claim to feel that doing so "comes across as very creepy".


I consider the treatment of the animals to be important, I consider it to be
important that they not be made to suffer. The Logic of Larder points to the
animals as if to say "Look what I am doing by consuming animal products, all
those animal getting to enjoy eating and shitting."

>>From you otoh the evidence is that you
>>are mainly interested in how their very existence reflects on how YOU are
>>judged.

>
> No,


Yes! It is the essence of your position.

> again you're so completely unable get over your selfishness


Wrong, I won't let you pretend and hide your selfishness.

> that you can't even think about it. Here's an example that will be
> wasted of course, but here is one anyway:


It'll be wasted because it's bound to be bullshit, no other reason.

> Even though I haven't bought any lamb in the past 10 years I
> can still consider the fact that some sheep have lives of positive
> value only because they are raised for food, without any thought
> of imaginary moral browny points in regards to myself. You--in
> complete contrast--could never do that.


I could think it, but what would be the point?

> That same type of thinking also applies to the billions of other
> animals who live because they're raised for food but I never
> contribute to the lives of, because they are part of different
> farming and marketing systems than what I make my insignificant
> contributions to. You are necessarily completely lost now due to
> your selfish obesession with imaginary browny points which don't
> apply in these examples, but you can consider nothing else.


You're a liar or a fool, probably both. When you refer to "animals who live
because they're raised for food" you are implying that is a justification
for raising them. You are trying to extract moral brownie points where none
are due.


>> >>>>for humans it raises the notion that perhaps the raising of livestock
>>>>>>really
>>>>>>is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The purity of your selfishness--insanely obsessed with some
>>>>> imaginary moral reward system--obviously prevents you from thinking
>>>>> about the animals to such a degree that you're not even able to
>>>>> understand the concept, much less attempt doing it. It's disgusting.
>>>>
>>>>The problem is I "understand the concept" perfectly.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence that you understand it at all.

>>
>>I understand it perfectly.
>>
>>>There is only
>>> evidence that you're worried about some imaginary moral reward
>>> system that you feel could somehow benefit you,

>>
>>Exactly wrong, I feel the lives of livestock do NOT benefit me,

>
> I hope no one is stupid enough to believe you're not lying
> about that.


Speak English you dolt.

>>and that no
>>moral rewards are applicable, contrary to what the LoL says.
>>
>>> while remaining
>>> incapable of considering any benefit to the animals.

>>
>>Considering *what* about benefit to the animals?

>
> Everything.


Not good enough. Bullshitter, Equivocator.

> But as we can see you are capable of nothing, and
> you admittedly find it "creepy" to consider the animals.


It's not creepy at to consider the welfare of those animals, it's creepy as
hell to think about how great it is that they get to experience life just
because we consume them. YOU are creepy as hell.

>
>>>>You are looking at the lives of livestock animals and making that
>>>>into a justification for raising them. It's a flawed, circular
>>>>sophistry.
>>>
>>> It's an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras" don't
>>> want taken into consideration,

>>
>>It has no business being taking into consideration the way The LoL
>>suggests.
>>
>>> because it suggests that providing
>>> decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could
>>> be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".

>>
>>Wrong again, as usual. That is NOT the reason I oppose the LoL,

>
> Yes it is. It is the ONLY reason you support the LoTP over the LoL.


I'll go farther than that. I hereby state categorically that I AGREE "that
providing decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW-- *IS*
ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".

Can it get any clearer than that? I personally, in my own life, support
providing decent lives and humane deaths for livestock.

Now, how can you say that this is the reason I oppose the LoL?

>>and it does NOT suggest anything of the sort anyway.

>
> LOL. It suggests that and nothing else.


From your point of view maybe, but your point of view is all messed up.

>>>You're
>>> OBVIOUSLY afraid of "ar" losing moral browny points, gold stars,

>>
>>No moral gold stars are available for causing livestock to exist. The LoL
>>is
>>failed sophistry.
>>
>>> or whatever, to decent AW in your imaginary moral reward system.
>>> Duh!

>>
>>Duh! YOUR imaginary moral reward system. "Considering what the animals get
>>out of it"

>
> Is beyond your ability to appreciate, even though you amusingly,
> dishonestly and by now very contemptibly have boasted that "there
> is plenty of evidence" of you being able to do it.


I regret that you are this confused, but it's not my fault.

>>when deciding if it's right to raise and kill animals for food *IS*

proposing a
>>moral reward system, i.e. *if* the animals get something out of it that
>>implies that
>>it's a good thing to do. The fact that animals get "life" out of our use
>>of them as
>>products is not a factor when deciding if it's right or wrong.

>
> It is for anyone who's willing to consider the animals,


No it's not. Ethical "consideration" of the animals involves caring about
the quality of their lives, for their sake, not thinking about "what they
get out of it" in some kind of implied deal with consumers. THAT is creepy,
and pointless.

> which you
> are not. If you were, you would have to factor it in and would not
> find it creepy to do so.


It's creepy as hell, YOU are creepy as hell.