Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
http://tinyurl.com/gh7cn
http://tinyurl.com/goh3f http://tinyurl.com/f4kt7 http://tinyurl.com/zxf82 http://tinyurl.com/h49cy http://tinyurl.com/fmsmk http://tinyurl.com/qa322 http://tinyurl.com/lpzay http://tinyurl.com/lwsxq http://tinyurl.com/lgedb http://tinyurl.com/pfobw http://tinyurl.com/jd4zl Because: http://tinyurl.com/kql53 http://tinyurl.com/kjbeb http://tinyurl.com/gt56j http://tinyurl.com/mxp3p http://tinyurl.com/fwhet http://tinyurl.com/hhjg6 http://tinyurl.com/zhdo3 |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
dh@. wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/goh3f Do you really think there's four amphibians in EVERY square foot of rice? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
"brother" > wrote in message ... > dh@. wrote: > >> http://tinyurl.com/goh3f > > Do you really think there's four amphibians in EVERY square > foot of rice? > ======================= There can be. Each spring around our pond it gets so that you cannot even walk around the pond. It looks like the grass is moving there are that many frogs. It's like a bad horror film where a carpet of frogs are all moving in mass... Even now I'll see several while i mow. Some years are really bad, this year had somewhat fewer numbers than last, but it seemed like they are here longer. > > > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
rick wrote:
> "brother" > wrote in message > ... >> dh@. wrote: >> >>> http://tinyurl.com/goh3f >> Do you really think there's four amphibians in EVERY square >> foot of rice? >> ======================= > There can be. Each spring around our pond it gets so that you > cannot even walk > around the pond. It looks like the grass is moving there are > that many frogs. It's like a bad > horror film where a carpet of frogs are all moving in mass... > Even now I'll see several while i mow. > Some years are really bad, this year had somewhat fewer numbers > than last, but it seemed like they are > here longer. > What rice field are you referring to? > >> >> > > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
"brother" > wrote in message ... > rick wrote: >> "brother" > wrote in message >> ... >>> dh@. wrote: >>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/goh3f >>> Do you really think there's four amphibians in EVERY square >>> foot of rice? >>> ======================= >> There can be. Each spring around our pond it gets so that >> you cannot even walk >> around the pond. It looks like the grass is moving there are >> that many frogs. It's like a bad >> horror film where a carpet of frogs are all moving in mass... >> Even now I'll see several while i mow. >> Some years are really bad, this year had somewhat fewer >> numbers than last, but it seemed like they are >> here longer. >> > > What rice field are you referring to? > ========================= Nice strawman. It doesn't HAVE to be a rice field, only a body of water. But thanks for proving your ignorance and stupidity, killer. > >> >>> >>> >> |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
rick wrote:
> "brother" > wrote in message > ... >> rick wrote: >>> "brother" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/goh3f >>>> Do you really think there's four amphibians in EVERY square >>>> foot of rice? >>>> ======================= >>> There can be. Each spring around our pond it gets so that >>> you cannot even walk >>> around the pond. It looks like the grass is moving there are >>> that many frogs. It's like a bad >>> horror film where a carpet of frogs are all moving in mass... >>> Even now I'll see several while i mow. >>> Some years are really bad, this year had somewhat fewer >>> numbers than last, but it seemed like they are >>> here longer. >>> >> What rice field are you referring to? >> ========================= > Nice strawman. It doesn't HAVE to be a rice field, only a body > of water. What; like your fat head? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
Andy comments:
Not interested in rice.... What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? Andy in Eureka, Texas |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
Andy wrote:
> Andy comments: > > Not interested in rice.... > > What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? Have a guess fat boy. > > Andy in Eureka, Texas > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
"bother" > wrote in message ... > rick wrote: >> "brother" > wrote in message >> ... >>> rick wrote: >>>> "brother" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/goh3f >>>>> Do you really think there's four amphibians in EVERY square >>>>> foot of rice? >>>>> ======================= >>>> There can be. Each spring around our pond it gets so that >>>> you cannot even walk >>>> around the pond. It looks like the grass is moving there >>>> are that many frogs. It's like a bad >>>> horror film where a carpet of frogs are all moving in >>>> mass... Even now I'll see several while i mow. >>>> Some years are really bad, this year had somewhat fewer >>>> numbers than last, but it seemed like they are >>>> here longer. >>>> >>> What rice field are you referring to? >>> ========================= >> Nice strawman. It doesn't HAVE to be a rice field, only a >> body of water. > > What; like your fat head? ================== Thanks for again proving your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer... |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
Andy wrote:
> > > Not interested in rice.... > > What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? > > Andy in Eureka, Texas > Now you're talkin'! - big thick steaks grilled over mesquite alongside shrimp kabobs, marinated chicken breasts, roasted ears of corn and big thick onion slices... (oh yeah, LOTS of death there...) AL |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
brother wrote:
> Andy wrote: > >> Andy comments: >> >> Not interested in rice.... >> >> What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? > > > Have a guess fat boy. Well, there goes MY appetite - guess I'll pass on lunch, grab a cold one and head back to the field. AL |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
rick wrote: > "brother" > wrote in message > ... > > rick wrote: > >> "brother" > wrote in message > >> ... > >>> dh@. wrote: > >>> > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/goh3f > >>> Do you really think there's four amphibians in EVERY square > >>> foot of rice? > >>> ======================= > >> There can be. Each spring around our pond it gets so that > >> you cannot even walk > >> around the pond. It looks like the grass is moving there are > >> that many frogs. It's like a bad > >> horror film where a carpet of frogs are all moving in mass... > >> Even now I'll see several while i mow. > >> Some years are really bad, this year had somewhat fewer > >> numbers than last, but it seemed like they are > >> here longer. > >> > > > > What rice field are you referring to? > > ========================= > Nice strawman. It doesn't HAVE to be a rice field, only a body > of water. But thanks for proving your ignorance and stupidity, > killer. > How about some photographic evidence of the deaths pRicky? Quit being so ****in' *** and go out and get some pictures!!! > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> > >> |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
In article .com>,
"Andy" > wrote: > Andy comments: > > Not interested in rice.... > > What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? > > Andy in Eureka, Texas > Does the cow count, or are you specifically looking for a side-order of collateral damage? Perfectly content member of PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals. -- GLEEEEEP! It ain't the bullet with my name on it that I'm afraid of - There's no dodging that one. It's the one addressed "To whom it may concern" that worries me. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:53:29 +0100, brother > wrote:
>rick wrote: >> "brother" > wrote in message >> ... >>> rick wrote: >>>> "brother" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/goh3f >>>>> Do you really think there's four amphibians in EVERY square >>>>> foot of rice? >>>>> ======================= >>>> There can be. Each spring around our pond it gets so that >>>> you cannot even walk >>>> around the pond. It looks like the grass is moving there are >>>> that many frogs. It's like a bad >>>> horror film where a carpet of frogs are all moving in mass... >>>> Even now I'll see several while i mow. >>>> Some years are really bad, this year had somewhat fewer >>>> numbers than last, but it seemed like they are >>>> here longer. >>>> >>> What rice field are you referring to? >>> ========================= >> Nice strawman. It doesn't HAVE to be a rice field, only a body >> of water. > >What It's the stuff they flood rice fields with, changing the environment and drowning land animals. Then a new group of creatures establish populations in the new water filled environment. Later the water is drained, killing a lot of the water dependant animals. A while later the harvester comes along killing a lot of the ones who still survive. After harvest, pretty much anything that has survived is killed off by predators who have easy pickings because their prey (the creatures who lived in the rice field) have lost the shelter of the rice plants. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote:
>Andy comments: > > Not interested in rice.... > >What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the rice. People get many servings of meat from the death of a steer. If a grass raised steer provides 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000 death per serving. In contrast to that, there may be several deaths involved with a bowl or two of rice. On top of that the cattle only live because they're raised for food, so eating meat not only contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes to their lives. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote > On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote: > >>Andy comments: >> >> Not interested in rice.... >> >>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? > > If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the > rice. People get many servings of meat from the > death of a steer. Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on vole populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain. > If a grass raised steer provides > 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000 > death per serving. That's a lie, see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat other than beef. > In contrast to that, there may > be several deaths involved with a bowl or two > of rice. You can't say that with any certainty. > On top of that the cattle only live because > they're raised for food, so eating meat not only > contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes > to their lives. The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of the rich crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives" then commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef. You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too. The onus is on ARAs to establish that we do not have the right to use animals as food, relax, they can't. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote: >> >>>Andy comments: >>> >>> Not interested in rice.... >>> >>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? >> >> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the >> rice. People get many servings of meat from the >> death of a steer. > >Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on vole >populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain. > >> If a grass raised steer provides >> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000 >> death per serving. > >That's a lie, It's a fact, though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination, ie: AR. > see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat >other than beef. Andy mentioned steak. >> In contrast to that, there may >> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two >> of rice. > >You can't say that with any certainty. Yes I can. You "aras" just can't understand how there could be. >> On top of that the cattle only live because >> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only >> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes >> to their lives. > >The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of the rich >crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives" then >commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef. Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an area, I can't believe your claim. >You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too. So I don't. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote: >>> >>>>Andy comments: >>>> >>>> Not interested in rice.... >>>> >>>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? >>> >>> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the >>> rice. People get many servings of meat from the >>> death of a steer. >> >>Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on vole >>populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain. >> >>> If a grass raised steer provides >>> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000 >>> death per serving. >> >>That's a lie, > > It's a fact, It's a lie. > though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it > promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination, > ie: AR. I'm not an ARA, and I hate it because it's a lie. >> see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat >>other than beef. > > Andy mentioned steak. How convenient, I am mentioning the rest of the livestock, the other 99% of the animals, who all eat farmed crops. >>> In contrast to that, there may >>> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two >>> of rice. >> >>You can't say that with any certainty. > > Yes I can. No you can't. You're just firing blanks. > You "aras" just can't understand how there could be. That's not certainty. >>> On top of that the cattle only live because >>> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only >>> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes >>> to their lives. >> >>The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of the >>rich >>crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives" then >>commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef. > > Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides > and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an > area, I can't believe your claim. Wildlife like voles, frogs and lizards are prolific. You said yourself that many more are killed in the production of rice, that means *necessarily* that many must also "get to experience life". You can't have it both ways. If it's a positive that grass-fed cattle "get to experience life" before we kill them then it must also be a positive that field mice get to experience life before we kill them too. >>You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too. > > So I don't. Yes you do. Your whole approach is a sham. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:27:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>Andy comments: >>>>> >>>>> Not interested in rice.... >>>>> >>>>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? >>>> >>>> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the >>>> rice. People get many servings of meat from the >>>> death of a steer. >>> >>>Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on vole >>>populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain. >>> >>>> If a grass raised steer provides >>>> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000 >>>> death per serving. >>> >>>That's a lie, >> >> It's a fact, > >It's a lie. How many is it then? Is it more than 3/1000? How many is it for 1000 servings of rice? >> though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it >> promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination, >> ie: AR. > >I'm not an ARA, "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and killing them." - Dutch "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist." - Dutch "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS"." - Dutch "I am an animal rights believer." - Dutch >and I hate it because it's a lie. > >>> see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat >>>other than beef. >> >> Andy mentioned steak. > >How convenient, I am mentioning the rest of the livestock, Why? >the other 99% of the animals, who all eat farmed crops. > >>>> In contrast to that, there may >>>> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two >>>> of rice. >>> >>>You can't say that with any certainty. >> >> Yes I can. > >No you can't. You're just firing blanks. > >> You "aras" just can't understand how there could be. > >That's not certainty. It's certain that there may be. >>>> On top of that the cattle only live because >>>> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only >>>> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes >>>> to their lives. >>> >>>The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of the >>>rich >>>crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives" then >>>commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef. >> >> Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides >> and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an >> area, I can't believe your claim. > >Wildlife like voles, frogs and lizards are prolific. You said yourself that >many more are killed in the production of rice, that means *necessarily* >that many must also "get to experience life". You can't have it both ways. >If it's a positive that grass-fed cattle "get to experience life" before we >kill them then it must also be a positive that field mice get to experience >life before we kill them too. Wildlife get to experience life in pastures too, but in pastures they aren't killed by plows, harvesters and *icides nearly as often as in rice fields. Why do you want people to think they are? >>>You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too. >> >> So I don't. > >Yes you do. Your whole approach is a sham. Why do you want people to think that considering lives of positive value for livestock "is a sham"? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:27:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Andy comments: >>>>>> >>>>>> Not interested in rice.... >>>>>> >>>>>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? >>>>> >>>>> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the >>>>> rice. People get many servings of meat from the >>>>> death of a steer. >>>> >>>>Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on >>>>vole >>>>populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain. >>>> >>>>> If a grass raised steer provides >>>>> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000 >>>>> death per serving. >>>> >>>>That's a lie, >>> >>> It's a fact, >> >>It's a lie. > > How many is it then? Is it more than 3/1000? How many is it > for 1000 servings of rice? I don't know and I'm not claiming to know. >>> though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it >>> promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination, >>> ie: AR. >> >>I'm not an ARA, > > "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and > killing them." - Dutch > > "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist." - Dutch > > "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted > like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS"." - Dutch > > "I am an animal rights believer." - Dutch Doesn't it strike you as unethical to present quotes as contemporaneous from a time several years ago when you know I presented myself as an animal rights advocate? Not to mention desperate? You're sounding more like Derek all the time. >>and I hate it because it's a lie. >> >>>> see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat >>>>other than beef. >>> >>> Andy mentioned steak. >> >>How convenient, I am mentioning the rest of the livestock, > > Why? Because I like demonstrating what a shallow liar you are. >>the other 99% of the animals, who all eat farmed crops. >> >>>>> In contrast to that, there may >>>>> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two >>>>> of rice. >>>> >>>>You can't say that with any certainty. >>> >>> Yes I can. >> >>No you can't. You're just firing blanks. >> >>> You "aras" just can't understand how there could be. I can see how there could be. >>That's not certainty. > > It's certain that there may be. LOL! >>>>> On top of that the cattle only live because >>>>> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only >>>>> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes >>>>> to their lives. >>>> >>>>The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of the >>>>rich >>>>crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives" then >>>>commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef. >>> >>> Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides >>> and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an >>> area, I can't believe your claim. >> >>Wildlife like voles, frogs and lizards are prolific. You said yourself >>that >>many more are killed in the production of rice, that means *necessarily* >>that many must also "get to experience life". You can't have it both ways. >>If it's a positive that grass-fed cattle "get to experience life" before >>we >>kill them then it must also be a positive that field mice get to >>experience >>life before we kill them too. > > Wildlife get to experience life in pastures too, but in pastures they > aren't killed by plows, harvesters and *icides nearly as often as in rice > fields. Why do you want people to think they are? I don't, I want you to see the absurdity of your livestock "getting to experience life" argument. >>>>You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too. >>> >>> So I don't. >> >>Yes you do. Your whole approach is a sham. > > Why do you want people to think that considering lives of positive > value for livestock "is a sham"? People who have heard the LoL already think it's a sham, and have dismissed it, and you. I am just trying to get the fact through YOUR head. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:28:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:27:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Andy comments: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not interested in rice.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the >>>>>> rice. People get many servings of meat from the >>>>>> death of a steer. >>>>> >>>>>Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on >>>>>vole >>>>>populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain. >>>>> >>>>>> If a grass raised steer provides >>>>>> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000 >>>>>> death per serving. >>>>> >>>>>That's a lie, >>>> >>>> It's a fact, >>> >>>It's a lie. >> >> How many is it then? Is it more than 3/1000? How many is it >> for 1000 servings of rice? > > I don't know and I'm not claiming to know. As usual you have no clue what you think you're trying to talk about. >>>> though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it >>>> promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination, >>>> ie: AR. >>> >>>I'm not an ARA, >> >> "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and >> killing them." - Dutch >> >> "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist." - Dutch >> >> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted >> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS"." - Dutch >> >> "I am an animal rights believer." - Dutch > >Doesn't it strike you as unethical to present quotes as contemporaneous from >a time several years ago when you know I presented myself as an animal >rights advocate? You amusingly though contemptibly have no clue what you think you're trying to talk about, or how you think you disagree with yourself. >Not to mention desperate? You're sounding more like Derek >all the time. LOL! It's not desperate to point out that you have no idea how you think you disagree with yourself. >>>and I hate it because it's a lie. >>> >>>>> see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat >>>>>other than beef. >>>> >>>> Andy mentioned steak. >>> >>>How convenient, I am mentioning the rest of the livestock, >> >> Why? > >Because I like demonstrating what a shallow liar you are. You have yet to do so, so you again have no clue what you think you're trying to talk about. >>>the other 99% of the animals, who all eat farmed crops. >>> >>>>>> In contrast to that, there may >>>>>> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two >>>>>> of rice. >>>>> >>>>>You can't say that with any certainty. >>>> >>>> Yes I can. >>> >>>No you can't. You're just firing blanks. >>> >>>> You "aras" just can't understand how there could be. > >I can see how there could be. > >>>That's not certainty. >> >> It's certain that there may be. > >LOL! Apparently you went from being able to "see how there could be" to being unable to see it remarkably quickly, even for a flake like you. >>>>>> On top of that the cattle only live because >>>>>> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only >>>>>> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes >>>>>> to their lives. >>>>> >>>>>The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of the >>>>>rich >>>>>crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives" then >>>>>commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef. >>>> >>>> Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides >>>> and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an >>>> area, I can't believe your claim. >>> >>>Wildlife like voles, frogs and lizards are prolific. You said yourself >>>that >>>many more are killed in the production of rice, that means *necessarily* >>>that many must also "get to experience life". You can't have it both ways. >>>If it's a positive that grass-fed cattle "get to experience life" before >>>we >>>kill them then it must also be a positive that field mice get to >>>experience >>>life before we kill them too. >> >> Wildlife get to experience life in pastures too, but in pastures they >> aren't killed by plows, harvesters and *icides nearly as often as in rice >> fields. Why do you want people to think they are? > >I don't, You do. >I want you to see the absurdity of your livestock "getting to >experience life" argument. They do. >>>>>You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too. >>>> >>>> So I don't. >>> >>>Yes you do. Your whole approach is a sham. >> >> Why do you want people to think that considering lives of positive >> value for livestock "is a sham"? > >People who have heard the LoL already think it's a sham, and have dismissed >it, and you. I am just trying to get the fact through YOUR head. I'm well aware of the fact that you "aras" can't understand much less appreciate the fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, and have been pointing the fact out to you the entire time...even during the periods when you alternated between pretending to understand that you could and admitting that you could not: "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch" __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" <dh@.> pointed out: > You can't explain why life of a positive value is of no benefit to > you, or to animals. Why should I, it's not what I'm saying. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ "some mystical "value to the animals"" - "Dutch" __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" <dh@.> pointed out: > Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of > anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's > possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS? I've already said that it's possible, in the quote you keep asking me about. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ "Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means," - "Dutch" __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" <dh@.> wrote: > Quality of life determines whether or not life has positive value to animals, > even though you've proven yourself unable to understand that. What's to understand? ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ You cluelessly flop back and forth pretending to understand, then admitting you have no clue, all the while hilariously pretending that you could possibly have something to "teach" about this issue you don't have a clue about. The ONLY thing you "aras" are rock solidly consistent about is the FACT that you have absolutely no consideration for the animals themselves. The pureness of your selfishness prevents you from giving their lives any consideration at all. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:28:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:27:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Andy comments: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not interested in rice.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the >>>>>>> rice. People get many servings of meat from the >>>>>>> death of a steer. >>>>>> >>>>>>Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on >>>>>>vole >>>>>>populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If a grass raised steer provides >>>>>>> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000 >>>>>>> death per serving. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's a lie, >>>>> >>>>> It's a fact, >>>> >>>>It's a lie. >>> >>> How many is it then? Is it more than 3/1000? How many is it >>> for 1000 servings of rice? >> >> I don't know and I'm not claiming to know. > > As usual you have no clue what you think you're trying > to talk about. As usual I try to avoid making claims that I can't prove. >>>>> though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it >>>>> promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination, >>>>> ie: AR. >>>> >>>>I'm not an ARA, >>> >>> "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and >>> killing them." - Dutch >>> >>> "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist." - Dutch >>> >>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted >>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS"." - Dutch >>> >>> "I am an animal rights believer." - Dutch >> >>Doesn't it strike you as unethical to present quotes as contemporaneous >>from >>a time several years ago when you know I presented myself as an animal >>rights advocate? > > You amusingly though contemptibly have no clue what you think > you're trying to talk about, or how you think you disagree with yourself. Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your opponent categorically rejects? >>Not to mention desperate? You're sounding more like Derek >>all the time. > > LOL! It's not desperate to point out that you have no idea how you > think you disagree with yourself. That was another ****wit statement. >>>>and I hate it because it's a lie. >>>> >>>>>> see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat >>>>>>other than beef. >>>>> >>>>> Andy mentioned steak. >>>> >>>>How convenient, I am mentioning the rest of the livestock, >>> >>> Why? >> >>Because I like demonstrating what a shallow liar you are. > > You have yet to do so, so you again have no clue what > you think you're trying to talk about. I do so repeatedly and will continue. >>>>the other 99% of the animals, who all eat farmed crops. >>>> >>>>>>> In contrast to that, there may >>>>>>> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two >>>>>>> of rice. >>>>>> >>>>>>You can't say that with any certainty. >>>>> >>>>> Yes I can. >>>> >>>>No you can't. You're just firing blanks. >>>> >>>>> You "aras" just can't understand how there could be. >> >>I can see how there could be. >> >>>>That's not certainty. >>> >>> It's certain that there may be. >> >>LOL! > > Apparently Apparently you're hopeless. >>>>>>> On top of that the cattle only live because >>>>>>> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only >>>>>>> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes >>>>>>> to their lives. >>>>>> >>>>>>The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of >>>>>>the >>>>>>rich >>>>>>crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives" >>>>>>then >>>>>>commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef. >>>>> >>>>> Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides >>>>> and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an >>>>> area, I can't believe your claim. >>>> >>>>Wildlife like voles, frogs and lizards are prolific. You said yourself >>>>that >>>>many more are killed in the production of rice, that means *necessarily* >>>>that many must also "get to experience life". You can't have it both >>>>ways. >>>>If it's a positive that grass-fed cattle "get to experience life" before >>>>we >>>>kill them then it must also be a positive that field mice get to >>>>experience >>>>life before we kill them too. >>> >>> Wildlife get to experience life in pastures too, but in pastures they >>> aren't killed by plows, harvesters and *icides nearly as often as in >>> rice >>> fields. Why do you want people to think they are? >> >>I don't, > > You do. I don't, I have no reason to. WIldlife, like livestock, happen to be living creatures, their lives per se are not relevant to this issue. >>I want you to see the absurdity of your livestock "getting to >>experience life" argument. > > They do. So do children of abusive parents "get to experience life", does that factor into our moral judgment of those parents in any way? No, because a being "getting to experience life" does not entitle anyone else to a moral argument. It is simply a "fact of life". >>>>>>You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too. >>>>> >>>>> So I don't. >>>> >>>>Yes you do. Your whole approach is a sham. >>> >>> Why do you want people to think that considering lives of positive >>> value for livestock "is a sham"? >> >>People who have heard the LoL already think it's a sham, and have >>dismissed >>it, and you. I am just trying to get the fact through YOUR head. > > I'm well aware <snip> No you're not "well aware" at all, you're utterly blinded by this phony argument, along with pride and stubborness. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked:
>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your >opponent categorically rejects? You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** up about it! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote > On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: > >>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your >>opponent categorically rejects? > > You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** > up about it! There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now categorically reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your basic position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a favor by giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey that same message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. As soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will immediately stop attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your good health. I will NOT quote a position as yours once you reject it, I consider that to be the anathema of rational debate, a classic strawman. Your whole approach is littered with equivocations, strawmen, evasions, and various other attempts to cloud the issue. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: >> >>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your >>>opponent categorically rejects? >> >> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** >> up about it! > >There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now categorically >reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your basic >position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a favor by >giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey that same >message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. As >soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will immediately stop >attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your good >health. I'm not going to unlearn what I've learned, much less accept your disgusting inconsideration for livestock. In order to accept your position I would have to develop the same revulsion you have for eating animals, and THEN somehow learn to completely disregard the fact that it's all they get simply to selfishly support that particular personal mental problem. No, you can forget about it. >I will NOT quote a position as yours once you reject it Of course I don't believe that shit, but I'll keep the quote for when you end up proving yourself a liar about it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: >>> >>>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your >>>>opponent categorically rejects? >>> >>> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** >>> up about it! >> >>There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now categorically >>reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your >>basic >>position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a favor >>by >>giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey that >>same >>message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. As >>soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will immediately >>stop >>attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your good >>health. > > I'm not going to unlearn what I've learned, Too bad, you should. > much less accept your > disgusting inconsideration for livestock. That equivocation on "inconsiderate" is getting stale ****wit. By doing it you're only confusing yourself, you're not fooling anyone else. > In order to accept your position > I would have to develop the same revulsion you have for eating animals, I enjoy eating meat a great deal. > and THEN somehow learn to completely disregard the fact that it's all > they get simply to selfishly support that particular personal mental > problem. > No, you can forget about it. Your confusion is treatable, you only have to try. > >>I will NOT quote a position as yours once you reject it > > Of course Exactly. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:32:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: >>>> >>>>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your >>>>>opponent categorically rejects? >>>> >>>> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** >>>> up about it! >>> >>>There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now categorically >>>reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your >>>basic >>>position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a favor >>>by >>>giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey that >>>same >>>message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. As >>>soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will immediately >>>stop >>>attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your good >>>health. >> >> I'm not going to unlearn what I've learned, > >Too bad, you should. You flop around claiming to believe one thing at one point and then something totally different at some other point. That means you haven't really "learned" anything, but you are grabbing around at different ideas "thinking" one thing is true one day, and something completely different is true the next. In contrast to that I have learned things from first hand experience, over the course of a number of years. It's different for me in a way that you obviously couldn't even imagine. Like I told you before, you're like a little child trying to explain to me that chocolate milk comes from brown cows... >> much less accept your >> disgusting inconsideration for livestock. > >That equivocation on "inconsiderate" is getting stale ****wit. By doing it >you're only confusing yourself, you're not fooling anyone else. You have no idea what you're trying to talk about, little fella. >> In order to accept your position >> I would have to develop the same revulsion you have for eating animals, > >I enjoy eating meat a great deal. > >> and THEN somehow learn to completely disregard the fact that it's all >> they get simply to selfishly support that particular personal mental >> problem. >> No, you can forget about it. > >Your confusion is treatable, you only have to try. LOL!!! Where do you think strawberry milk comes from Dutchy? Do you think it's from pink cows, or do you think people milk strawberries? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:32:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: >>>>> >>>>>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your >>>>>>opponent categorically rejects? >>>>> >>>>> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** >>>>> up about it! >>>> >>>>There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now >>>>categorically >>>>reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your >>>>basic >>>>position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a >>>>favor >>>>by >>>>giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey that >>>>same >>>>message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. >>>>As >>>>soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will immediately >>>>stop >>>>attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your >>>>good >>>>health. >>> >>> I'm not going to unlearn what I've learned, >> >>Too bad, you should. > > You flop around claiming to believe one thing at one point and then > something totally different at some other point. That means you haven't > really "learned" anything, but you are grabbing around at different ideas > "thinking" one thing is true one day, and something completely different > is true the next. In contrast to that I have learned things from first > hand > experience, over the course of a number of years. It's different for me > in a way that you obviously couldn't even imagine. Like I told you before, > you're like a little child trying to explain to me that chocolate milk > comes > from brown cows... You're delusional ****wit, you don't know a godamm thing that I don't, you're a blithering idiot. >>> much less accept your >>> disgusting inconsideration for livestock. >> >>That equivocation on "inconsiderate" is getting stale ****wit. By doing it >>you're only confusing yourself, you're not fooling anyone else. > > You have no idea what you're trying to talk about, little fella. First of all, punk, I'm no little fella, I'm built like a linebacker, I could kick your flabby ass physically if I took a notion to, just like I kick your sorry ass intellectually. Second, I know exactly what I am saying. You are using the word "consider" meaning "to think about" (animals getting to experience life), then equivocating that with "being considerate" which means to go out of one's way to be helpful. Then you accuse your critics of "being inconsiderate" and "selfish" for not considering (thinking about) animals getting to experience life. That's one of the primary equivocations you keep repeating, apparently unconsciously. >>> In order to accept your position >>> I would have to develop the same revulsion you have for eating animals, >> >>I enjoy eating meat a great deal. >> >>> and THEN somehow learn to completely disregard the fact that it's all >>> they get simply to selfishly support that particular personal mental >>> problem. >>> No, you can forget about it. >> >>Your confusion is treatable, you only have to try. > > LOL!!! Where do you think strawberry milk comes from Dutchy? Do > you think it's from pink cows, or do you think people milk strawberries? I take it back, you're hopeless. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 22:44:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote >> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:32:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your >>>>>>>opponent categorically rejects? >>>>>> >>>>>> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** >>>>>> up about it! >>>>> >>>>>There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now >>>>>categorically >>>>>reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your >>>>>basic >>>>>position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a >>>>>favor >>>>>by >>>>>giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey that >>>>>same >>>>>message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. >>>>>As >>>>>soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will immediately >>>>>stop >>>>>attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your >>>>>good >>>>>health. >>>> >>>> I'm not going to unlearn what I've learned, >>> >>>Too bad, you should. >> >> You flop around claiming to believe one thing at one point and then >> something totally different at some other point. That means you haven't >> really "learned" anything, but you are grabbing around at different ideas >> "thinking" one thing is true one day, and something completely different >> is true the next. In contrast to that I have learned things from first >> hand >> experience, over the course of a number of years. It's different for me >> in a way that you obviously couldn't even imagine. Like I told you before, >> you're like a little child trying to explain to me that chocolate milk >> comes >> from brown cows... > >You're delusional ****wit, you don't know a godamm thing that I don't, If you could possibly believe that it means you're a damn fool. EVERYONE else knows things you don't, and that no one else does either. Damn Dutch! >you're a blithering idiot. Your mirror shows a better example of one than mine does, Dutchy. >>>> much less accept your >>>> disgusting inconsideration for livestock. >>> >>>That equivocation on "inconsiderate" is getting stale ****wit. By doing it >>>you're only confusing yourself, you're not fooling anyone else. >> >> You have no idea what you're trying to talk about, little fella. > >First of all, punk, I'm no little fella, Little of understanding and thought, little fella. Don't shit yourself over it. >I'm built like a linebacker, I >could kick your flabby ass physically if I took a notion to, just like I >kick your sorry ass intellectually. Second, I know exactly what I am saying. >You are using the word "consider" __________________________________________________ _______ Main Entry: con·sid·er·ation Pronunciation: k&n-"si-d&-'rA-sh&n Function: noun 1 : continuous and careful thought <after long consideration he agreed to their requests> 2 a : a matter weighed or taken into account when formulating an opinion or plan <economic considerations forced her to leave college> b : a taking into account 3 : thoughtful and sympathetic regard 4 : an opinion obtained by reflection http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >meaning "to think about" (animals getting >to experience life), then equivocating that with "being considerate" which >means __________________________________________________ _______ Main Entry: con·sid·er·ate Pronunciation: k&n-'si-d(&-)r&t Function: adjective 1 : marked by or given to careful consideration http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/considerate ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >to go out of one's way to be helpful. LOL! It does not, you dishonest ass. >Then you accuse your critics of >"being inconsiderate" and "selfish" for not considering (thinking about) >animals getting to experience life. And you most certainly are. You should be PROUD of it, since you claim that doing so makes you feel dirty or whatever, but no, you're ashamed because you neglect to do something you claim makes you feel dirty or whatever. You sure are a fruit loop there Dutchy. >That's one of the primary equivocations >you keep repeating, apparently unconsciously. > >>>> In order to accept your position >>>> I would have to develop the same revulsion you have for eating animals, >>> >>>I enjoy eating meat a great deal. >>> >>>> and THEN somehow learn to completely disregard the fact that it's all >>>> they get simply to selfishly support that particular personal mental >>>> problem. >>>> No, you can forget about it. >>> >>>Your confusion is treatable, you only have to try. >> >> LOL!!! Where do you think strawberry milk comes from Dutchy? Do >> you think it's from pink cows, or do you think people milk strawberries? > >I take it back, you're hopeless. Translation: The question is to complex for you, and you just can't figure it out. Helpful hint: It is really a sort of synergistic phenomenon. (secret hint: pink cows don't give pink milk ;-) |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 22:44:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:32:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that >>>>>>>>your >>>>>>>>opponent categorically rejects? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** >>>>>>> up about it! >>>>>> >>>>>>There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now >>>>>>categorically >>>>>>reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your >>>>>>basic >>>>>>position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a >>>>>>favor >>>>>>by >>>>>>giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey >>>>>>that >>>>>>same >>>>>>message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. >>>>>>As >>>>>>soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will >>>>>>immediately >>>>>>stop >>>>>>attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your >>>>>>good >>>>>>health. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not going to unlearn what I've learned, >>>> >>>>Too bad, you should. >>> >>> You flop around claiming to believe one thing at one point and then >>> something totally different at some other point. That means you haven't >>> really "learned" anything, but you are grabbing around at different >>> ideas >>> "thinking" one thing is true one day, and something completely >>> different >>> is true the next. In contrast to that I have learned things from first >>> hand >>> experience, over the course of a number of years. It's different for me >>> in a way that you obviously couldn't even imagine. Like I told you >>> before, >>> you're like a little child trying to explain to me that chocolate milk >>> comes >>> from brown cows... >> >>You're delusional ****wit, you don't know a godamm thing that I don't, > > If you could possibly believe that it means you're a damn fool. > EVERYONE > else knows things you don't, and that no one else does either. Damn Dutch! I'm talking about relevant things you clod, not the sordid details of your sick life. >>you're a blithering idiot. > > Your mirror shows a better example of one than mine does, Dutchy. I don't see you in the mirror, so no. >>>>> much less accept your >>>>> disgusting inconsideration for livestock. >>>> >>>>That equivocation on "inconsiderate" is getting stale ****wit. By doing >>>>it >>>>you're only confusing yourself, you're not fooling anyone else. >>> >>> You have no idea what you're trying to talk about, little fella. >> >>First of all, punk, I'm no little fella, > > Little of understanding and thought, little fella. Don't shit yourself > over it. I'm not little compared to you that way either, compared to you I am a intellectual giant. >>I'm built like a linebacker, I >>could kick your flabby ass physically if I took a notion to, just like I >>kick your sorry ass intellectually. Second, I know exactly what I am >>saying. >>You are using the word "consider" > __________________________________________________ _______ > Main Entry: con·sid·er·ation > Pronunciation: k&n-"si-d&-'rA-sh&n > Function: noun > 1 : continuous and careful thought <after long consideration he agreed to > their requests> > 2 a : a matter weighed or taken into account when formulating an opinion > or plan <economic > considerations forced her to leave college> b : a taking into account > 3 : thoughtful and sympathetic regard > 4 : an opinion obtained by reflection > > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary You equivocate between 3. and 4. constantly > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>meaning "to think about" (animals getting >>to experience life), then equivocating that with "being considerate" which >>means > __________________________________________________ _______ > Main Entry: con·sid·er·ate > Pronunciation: k&n-'si-d(&-)r&t > Function: adjective > 1 : marked by or given to careful consideration > > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/considerate > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>to go out of one's way to be helpful. > > LOL! It does not, you dishonest ass. Yes it does shithead, it's number 3. above, thoughtful and sympathetic regard. >>Then you accuse your critics of >>"being inconsiderate" and "selfish" for not considering (thinking about) >>animals getting to experience life. > > And you most certainly are. You should be PROUD of it, since you > claim that doing so makes you feel dirty or whatever, but no, you're > ashamed because you neglect to do something you claim makes you > feel dirty or whatever. You sure are a fruit loop there Dutchy. You're equivocating and anyone with a brain can see it. You are not "being considerate" ( 3 : thoughtful and sympathetic regard) by "consideration" (4 : an opinion obtained by reflection) and you are not "inconsiderate" if you disagree with the opinion formed by that consideration. >>That's one of the primary equivocations >>you keep repeating, apparently unconsciously. Or else you're stupid enough to think that we're all as dumb as you. > >>>>> In order to accept your position >>>>> I would have to develop the same revulsion you have for eating >>>>> animals, >>>> >>>>I enjoy eating meat a great deal. >>>> >>>>> and THEN somehow learn to completely disregard the fact that it's all >>>>> they get simply to selfishly support that particular personal mental >>>>> problem. >>>>> No, you can forget about it. >>>> >>>>Your confusion is treatable, you only have to try. >>> >>> LOL!!! Where do you think strawberry milk comes from Dutchy? Do >>> you think it's from pink cows, or do you think people milk strawberries? >> >>I take it back, you're hopeless. > > Translation: ****wit is a moron. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:57:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 22:44:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:32:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that >>>>>>>>>your >>>>>>>>>opponent categorically rejects? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the **** >>>>>>>> up about it! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now >>>>>>>categorically >>>>>>>reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your >>>>>>>basic >>>>>>>position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a >>>>>>>favor >>>>>>>by >>>>>>>giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey >>>>>>>that >>>>>>>same >>>>>>>message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. >>>>>>>As >>>>>>>soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will >>>>>>>immediately >>>>>>>stop >>>>>>>attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your >>>>>>>good >>>>>>>health. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not going to unlearn what I've learned, >>>>> >>>>>Too bad, you should. >>>> >>>> You flop around claiming to believe one thing at one point and then >>>> something totally different at some other point. That means you haven't >>>> really "learned" anything, but you are grabbing around at different >>>> ideas >>>> "thinking" one thing is true one day, and something completely >>>> different >>>> is true the next. In contrast to that I have learned things from first >>>> hand >>>> experience, over the course of a number of years. It's different for me >>>> in a way that you obviously couldn't even imagine. Like I told you >>>> before, >>>> you're like a little child trying to explain to me that chocolate milk >>>> comes >>>> from brown cows... >>> >>>You're delusional ****wit, you don't know a godamm thing that I don't, >> >> If you could possibly believe that it means you're a damn fool. >> EVERYONE >> else knows things you don't, and that no one else does either. Damn Dutch! > >I'm talking about relevant things LOL! You may think you're trying to, but you've shown that you don't even know what you think you think, or how you think you disagree with yourself about relevant things...you poor fool. .. . . >> Little of understanding and thought, little fella. Don't shit yourself >> over it. > >I'm not little You're tiny...but a writhing fleck of confusion at best, flopping about wondering wtf is going on, and changing your pov time after time in stupefied bewilderment. You could grow, but refuse. Maybe you're afraid to. I was lucky enough that even though we didn't live on a farm, people would walk me down the block to "feed the cows" pretty often, so I got around them even as a little kid, and wondered about some things they did. It wasn't until years later that I started hanging out at the farm all the time, and learned a good bit about that farm, and some things about dairy farming in general. It wasn't until years after that...even after raising our own pigs, cattle and chickens etc...killing what I consider to be many animals both wild and domestic...that I finally began to realise the significance of one of the things you keep going on about yet can't appreciate (you do that more than anyone I've ever even heard of btw, but then, damn few people do that) which is that we don't actually produce the life but influence which lives will and will not exist in a particular area. That's what it all comes down to, and you should have realised the significance of it by now. Humans will eventually have control over what lives where, everywhere on the planet...a hint of that is the fact that we do over so much of it already. So, we have to decide which animals are going to live and which are not. Seemingly insanely--no offense it just seems insane--you are now insisting that neither the lives of wildlife or domestic animals are allowed to be considered when thinking about human influence on animals. I believe the opposite. .. . . >Or else you're stupid enough to think that we're all as dumb as you. Your lack of ability to understand what I believe certainly suggests that you are probably too stupid to grasp what I've learned, and the fact that you disagree with yourself and flop from one pov to another shows that you really haven't learned anything at all. It's not my fault. In fact none of this stupidity is my fault. I just point out facts, and you "aras" create absurdity pretending to refute them as you despereately attempt to defend the concept of "ar" from the concept of decent AW. __________________________________________________ _______ The reduction of dissonance is a part of everday life; this is used to advantage by propagandists in what we call the *rationaliza- tion trap*. The trap goes like this. First, the propagandist intentionally arouses feelings of dissonance by threatening self-esteem--for ex- ample, by making the person feel guilty about something, by arousing feelings of shame or inadequacy, or by making the person look like a hypocrite or someone who does not honor his or her word. Next, the propagandist offers one solutioon, one way of reducing this dis- sonance--by complying with whatever request the propagandist has in mind. Age of Propaganda Anthony R. Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson October 1991 ISBN: 0716722119 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:57:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 22:44:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:32:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that >>>>>>>>>>your >>>>>>>>>>opponent categorically rejects? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the >>>>>>>>> **** >>>>>>>>> up about it! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now >>>>>>>>categorically >>>>>>>>reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been >>>>>>>>your >>>>>>>>basic >>>>>>>>position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a >>>>>>>>favor >>>>>>>>by >>>>>>>>giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey >>>>>>>>that >>>>>>>>same >>>>>>>>message when you say you consider their lives as well as their >>>>>>>>deaths. >>>>>>>>As >>>>>>>>soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will >>>>>>>>immediately >>>>>>>>stop >>>>>>>>attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your >>>>>>>>good >>>>>>>>health. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not going to unlearn what I've learned, >>>>>> >>>>>>Too bad, you should. >>>>> >>>>> You flop around claiming to believe one thing at one point and then >>>>> something totally different at some other point. That means you >>>>> haven't >>>>> really "learned" anything, but you are grabbing around at different >>>>> ideas >>>>> "thinking" one thing is true one day, and something completely >>>>> different >>>>> is true the next. In contrast to that I have learned things from first >>>>> hand >>>>> experience, over the course of a number of years. It's different for >>>>> me >>>>> in a way that you obviously couldn't even imagine. Like I told you >>>>> before, >>>>> you're like a little child trying to explain to me that chocolate milk >>>>> comes >>>>> from brown cows... >>>> >>>>You're delusional ****wit, you don't know a godamm thing that I don't, >>> >>> If you could possibly believe that it means you're a damn fool. >>> EVERYONE >>> else knows things you don't, and that no one else does either. Damn >>> Dutch! >> >>I'm talking about relevant things > > LOL! Laugh it up ****wit, because you're a laughing stock. You talk nonsense ****wit, and everyone can see it. >You may think you're trying to, but you've shown that you don't > even know what you think you think, or how you think you disagree with > yourself about relevant things...you poor fool. Laughing stock, got it? > . . . >>> Little of understanding and thought, little fella. Don't shit >>> yourself >>> over it. >> >>I'm not little > > You're tiny...but a writhing fleck of confusion at best, flopping about > wondering wtf is going on, and changing your pov time after time in > stupefied bewilderment. I'm a towering intellectual giant compared to you ****wit, you're, yes, a LAUGHING STOCK. > You could grow, but refuse. Maybe you're afraid to. I was lucky enough > that even though we didn't live on a farm, people would walk me down > the block to "feed the cows" pretty often, so I got around them even as > a little kid, and wondered about some things they did. It wasn't until > years > later that I started hanging out at the farm all the time, and learned a > good > bit about that farm, and some things about dairy farming in general. It > wasn't until years after that...even after raising our own pigs, cattle > and > chickens etc...killing what I consider to be many animals both wild and > domestic...that I finally began to realise the significance of one of the > things > you keep going on about yet can't appreciate (you do that more than anyone > I've ever even heard of btw, but then, damn few people do that) which is > that we don't actually produce the life but influence which lives will and > will > not exist in a particular area. That's what it all comes down to, and you > should have realised the significance of it by now. Humans will eventually > have control over what lives where, everywhere on the planet...a hint of > that is the fact that we do over so much of it already. So, we have to > decide which animals are going to live and which are not. Seemingly > insanely--no offense it just seems insane--you are now insisting that > neither > the lives of wildlife or domestic animals are allowed to be considered > when > thinking about human influence on animals. I believe the opposite. All bullshit ****wit, all irrelevant. Here's what's relevant, you are an idiot. You can't breed animals for food then claim you're doing them a service, then attack people who don't for withholding that service. It's absurd circular nonsense. > . . . >>Or else you're stupid enough to think that we're all as dumb as you. > > Your lack of ability to understand what I believe certainly suggests > that you are probably too stupid to grasp what I've learned, and the > fact that you disagree with yourself and flop from one pov to another > shows that you really haven't learned anything at all. It's not my fault. > In fact none of this stupidity is my fault. I just point out facts, and > you > "aras" create absurdity pretending to refute them as you despereately > attempt to defend the concept of "ar" from the concept of decent AW. Strawmen and equivocations, that's all you have left. They're shown to you and you ignore them. > __________________________________________________ _______ > The reduction of dissonance is a part of everday life; > this > is used to advantage by propagandists in what we call the *rationaliza- > tion trap*. The trap goes like this. First, the propagandist intentionally > arouses feelings of dissonance by threatening self-esteem--for ex- > ample, by making the person feel guilty about something, by arousing > feelings of shame or inadequacy, or by making the person look like a > hypocrite or someone who does not honor his or her word. Next, the > propagandist offers one solutioon, one way of reducing this dis- > sonance--by complying with whatever request the propagandist has > in mind. > > > Age of Propaganda > Anthony R. Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson > October 1991 > ISBN: 0716722119 Your inadequacy has been your choice ****wit, you can't blame it on other people. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Dutchy wrote:
>I'm a towering intellectual giant LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
<dh@.> wrote > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Dutchy wrote: > >>I'm a towering intellectual giant > > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ....compared to you. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
They die so we can eat rice...
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > <dh@.> wrote >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Dutchy wrote: >> >>>I'm a towering intellectual giant >> >> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > ...compared to you. A doorknob is a towering intellectual giant. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Obama Rice - Chinese companies mass producing fake rice out of plastic | General Cooking | |||
Rec:Wild Rice with Dried Cherries and Scallions made in a rice cooker | General Cooking | |||
Rec:wild rice with dried cherries and scallions made in a rice cooker | General Cooking | |||
Gurkhas Plain Boiled Rice and Yellow Rice | Recipes (moderated) | |||
zojirushi neuro fuzzy rice cooker for thai sweet rice (+ mango) | General Cooking |