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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:27:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:50:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:50:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:12:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>As I said 100 times before, promoting decent lives for farm animals
>>>>>>>does
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>require the Logic of the Larder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't, but appreciating what it does FOR livestock does.
>>>>>
>>>>>The LoL doesn't do anything for livestock.
>>>>
>>>> It could do something for them,
>>>
>>>It's not going to encourage people to raise livestock if that's what you
>>>think.

>>
>> I've told you my beliefs about that many times,

>
>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?


Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available. There is no
way of knowing how much more it could do for livestock is consumers
took more of an interest in how they are raised. In contrast to that,
it's quite obvious that "ar" has absolutely nothing to offer livestock
....literally "nothing" at all.

>> but apparently you'll
>> never be able to understand what they are.

>
>I understand the LoL perfectly, it's garbage, circular sophistry.


Your interpretation clearly shows that you have no understanding
of it, though you've very obviously accepted the "ar" pov.

>>>Even if it could, that is not doing anything worthwhile, there should
>>>not be any more livestock than we need.

>>
>> "ar" wants to prevent animals from being killed by preventing them
>> from living.

>
>Right,


So now you need to explain why that would be better than providing
them with decent lives and humane deaths. Go:

>the result of that being that some of the animals that *would have
>been born* are not. Therefore no animal is actually harmed. Theoretical
>animals that *would have been born* are not morally significant because they
>do not exist. Your above statement is not a valid critique of AR.
>
>> You STILL haven't shown why that's superior to providing
>> them with decent lives and humane deaths,

>
>I never claimed it was. I don't believe it is. That's a strawman.


It's the only alternative left after YOUR opposition. Duh. So YOU need
to support it in order to support your opposition.

>> but it's something you
>> necessarily must do in order to support your claim that the animals'
>> live should be given no consideration.

>
>That's incorrect, I do not need to support a claim that I am not making,
>incidentally you are equivocating on the word "lives". I have always
>advocated that their "lives", that is the conditions of their day-to-day
>existence, be given consideration, so that their "lives" have positive
>value. I oppose the LoL which proposes that we give consideration to their
>"lives", that is their very existence.


No it's not. That's just another lie that you hope people will believe,
and you have specifically pointed out your objection to Salt's honesty
regarding the issue.

You've pretended to understand the fact that life sometimes has
positive value for them. It's always been obvious that you can't, but
you've pretended that you can on more than one occasion. Can you
at least explain WHY you pretended to understand it? Of course I
can only predict that you can't explain that either...........
(and you yourself have SHOWN that you can't!)
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:27:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:50:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:50:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:12:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As I said 100 times before, promoting decent lives for farm animals
>>>>>>>>does
>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>require the Logic of the Larder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it doesn't, but appreciating what it does FOR livestock does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The LoL doesn't do anything for livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could do something for them,
>>>>
>>>>It's not going to encourage people to raise livestock if that's what you
>>>>think.
>>>
>>> I've told you my beliefs about that many times,

>>
>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?

>
> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.


Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering the
LoL at all. Try again, what can the LoL do for livestock?

<snip nonsense>


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:27:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:50:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:50:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:12:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As I said 100 times before, promoting decent lives for farm animals
>>>>>>>>>does
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>require the Logic of the Larder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it doesn't, but appreciating what it does FOR livestock does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The LoL doesn't do anything for livestock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could do something for them,
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not going to encourage people to raise livestock if that's what you
>>>>>think.
>>>>
>>>> I've told you my beliefs about that many times,
>>>
>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?

>>
>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.

>
>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering the
>LoL at all.


LOL!!! Yes WE are, you poor ignorant fool. If not, there would be no
market for the products. Even you should be able to understand that,
and maybe you really can but you're being deliberately dishonest again.

>Try again, what can the LoL do for livestock?


Encourage much consumer interest in promoting decent lives and
humane deaths for the billions of animals raised for food, which is
exactly what you "aras" obviously do NOT want to see happen,
because:
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

.. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

.. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual
reasons.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]

>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>
>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.

>>
>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering the
>>LoL at all.

>
> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.


The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the conditions
in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate their
suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and that's
why cage-free eggs happened.

The Logic of the Larder says that we should consider that livestock would
have no life at all if it were not for the fact that we raise them for food.
That concept says nothing about conditions. You can mention that Salt added
"Provided their lives are decent.." but that principle can and does stand
alone.



  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>[..]
>
>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>
>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>
>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering the
>>>LoL at all.

>>
>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.

>
>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the conditions
>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate their
>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and that's
>why cage-free eggs happened.


You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
magically happened. It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse to
give them to BEGIN with, and THEN they moved on to make ideas
regarding their lives become a reality. And THEN the consumers like
myself have to consider the animals lives, and decide we're willing to
pay EXTRA money in order to contribute to decent lives for them. You
will probably never be able to understand any part of all that, but that's
the way it is none the less.
Here's an extra clue for the totally clueless: The reason that grass
raised beef isn't available in most grocery stores is because not enough
people care enough about the animals' lives to request that it be made
available. So we have an example of what happens when people do
take an interest, and an example of what happens when they do not
take an interest like you don't.

"I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch

>The Logic of the Larder says that we should consider that livestock would
>have no life at all if it were not for the fact that we raise them for food.


That's because livestock would have no life at all if it were not for the
fact that we raise them for food. It's another one of those things that even
you really SHOULD be able to grasp, but it's too much for you.

>That concept says nothing about conditions.


That aspect is only PART of the LoL, but since you obviously have a
problem with that much you can't be expected to be able to comprehend
the whole idea.

>You can mention that Salt added
>"Provided their lives are decent.."


You've made it quite clear that you really don't know what to believe,
what you yourself believe, and that you have no problem at all disagreeing
with yourself even when you can't explain why or how. Most people aren't
so screwed up Dutch, and they have no problem understanding that lives
which are not of positive value, are NOT of positive value. You're the only
person I've ever discussed this with who seems to have a problem grasping
THAT aspect of the concept, but you sure can't get it.

>but that principle can and does stand alone.


That was completely meaningless.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>>
>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering
>>>>the
>>>>LoL at all.
>>>
>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.

>>
>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
>>conditions
>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate their
>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and
>>that's
>>why cage-free eggs happened.

>
> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
> magically happened.


It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering, there's
nothing magical about it.

> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse to
> give them to BEGIN with


Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which livestock
live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
embarrassment.


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:38:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
>>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering
>>>>>the
>>>>>LoL at all.
>>>>
>>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.
>>>
>>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
>>>conditions
>>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate their
>>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and
>>>that's
>>>why cage-free eggs happened.

>>
>> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
>> magically happened.

>
>It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering, there's
>nothing magical about it.
>
>> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
>> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse to
>> give them to BEGIN with

>
>Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which livestock
>live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
>embarrassment.


ONLY to fools.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:38:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
>>>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>LoL at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.
>>>>
>>>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
>>>>conditions
>>>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate
>>>>their
>>>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and
>>>>that's
>>>>why cage-free eggs happened.
>>>
>>> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
>>> magically happened.

>>
>>It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering, there's
>>nothing magical about it.
>>
>>> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
>>> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse to
>>> give them to BEGIN with

>>
>>Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which
>>livestock
>>live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
>>embarrassment.

>
> ONLY to fools.


The Logic of the Larder is a fool's argument.


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:42:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:38:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
>>>>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>LoL at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.
>>>>>
>>>>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
>>>>>conditions
>>>>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate
>>>>>their
>>>>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and
>>>>>that's
>>>>>why cage-free eggs happened.
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
>>>> magically happened.
>>>
>>>It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering, there's
>>>nothing magical about it.
>>>
>>>> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
>>>> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse to
>>>> give them to BEGIN with
>>>
>>>Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which
>>>livestock
>>>live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
>>>embarrassment.

>>
>> ONLY to fools.

>
>The Logic of the Larder is a fool's argument.


ONLY to fools. To anyone capable of consideration of other
beings, it's a necessary consideration when considering whether
or not it's cruel to animals to be raised for food. The purity of
your selfishness prevents you from considering what the animals
get out of the arrangement.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:42:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:38:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive
>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not
>>>>>>>>considering
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>LoL at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
>>>>>>conditions
>>>>>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate
>>>>>>their
>>>>>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and
>>>>>>that's
>>>>>>why cage-free eggs happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
>>>>> magically happened.
>>>>
>>>>It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering,
>>>>there's
>>>>nothing magical about it.
>>>>
>>>>> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
>>>>> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse
>>>>> to
>>>>> give them to BEGIN with
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which
>>>>livestock
>>>>live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
>>>>embarrassment.
>>>
>>> ONLY to fools.

>>
>>The Logic of the Larder is a fool's argument.

>
> ONLY to fools.


To a fool it makes perfect sense.

> To anyone capable of consideration of other
> beings, it's a necessary consideration when considering whether
> or not it's cruel to animals to be raised for food. The purity of
> your selfishness prevents you from considering what the animals
> get out of the arrangement.


You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning of the
word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second line
imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but then
you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are implying
the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic mode




  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


Dutch wrote:

> You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning of the
> word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
> generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second line
> imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but then
> you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
> attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are implying
> the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
> responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
> obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
> winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic mode



I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of the
anger and passion.

For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
principles. However for others, they may not have these images through
ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a necessary
'evil'.

If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
would make us think twice of buying their produce.

I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic can
seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.



> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:42:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><dh@.> wrote in message news > >>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:38:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message
> m...
> >>>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>[..]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive
> >>>>>>>>> value
> >>>>>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not
> >>>>>>>>considering
> >>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>LoL at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
> >>>>>>conditions
> >>>>>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate
> >>>>>>their
> >>>>>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and
> >>>>>>that's
> >>>>>>why cage-free eggs happened.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
> >>>>> magically happened.
> >>>>
> >>>>It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering,
> >>>>there's
> >>>>nothing magical about it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
> >>>>> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> give them to BEGIN with
> >>>>
> >>>>Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which
> >>>>livestock
> >>>>live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
> >>>>embarrassment.
> >>>
> >>> ONLY to fools.
> >>
> >>The Logic of the Larder is a fool's argument.

> >
> > ONLY to fools.

>
> To a fool it makes perfect sense.
>
> > To anyone capable of consideration of other
> > beings, it's a necessary consideration when considering whether
> > or not it's cruel to animals to be raised for food. The purity of
> > your selfishness prevents you from considering what the animals
> > get out of the arrangement.

>
> You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning of the
> word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
> generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second line
> imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but then
> you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
> attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are implying
> the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
> responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
> obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
> winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic mode


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:45:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:42:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news >>>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:38:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive
>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not
>>>>>>>>>considering
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>LoL at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
>>>>>>>conditions
>>>>>>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate
>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and
>>>>>>>that's
>>>>>>>why cage-free eggs happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
>>>>>> magically happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering,
>>>>>there's
>>>>>nothing magical about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
>>>>>> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> give them to BEGIN with
>>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which
>>>>>livestock
>>>>>live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
>>>>>embarrassment.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY to fools.
>>>
>>>The Logic of the Larder is a fool's argument.

>>
>> ONLY to fools.

>
>To a fool it makes perfect sense.


LOL! No you fool. To a fool like you it makes no sense. Duh.

>> To anyone capable of consideration of other
>> beings, it's a necessary consideration when considering whether
>> or not it's cruel to animals to be raised for food. The purity of
>> your selfishness prevents you from considering what the animals
>> get out of the arrangement.

>
>You're equivocating, you implied


No again you poor fool. I distinctly pointed out the FACT that the
purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering what the
animals get out of the arrangement, and it's the same with all "aras".
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On 6 Oct 2006 03:35:24 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:

>
>Dutch wrote:
>
>> You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning of the
>> word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
>> generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second line
>> imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but then
>> you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
>> attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are implying
>> the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
>> responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
>> obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
>> winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic mode

>
>
>I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>life, it can be no-holes barred.


In Dutch's case it's an obvious example of desperation. It took many
times of distinctly pointing out to him that there is more than on meaning
for the word "life", before he finally understood that there is. Now he claims
to be so confused that he can't figure out which meaning is being used
when, tries to blame his own confusion on me as if I'm the one at fault
even though he's obviously the one with a problem, and even more
amusingly in his desperation acts like his inability to differentiate between
meanings somehow makes the lives of livestock an insignificant aspect
of human influence on them. An amusing though also contemptible
display of desperation.

>Images of animal cruelty can be
>permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of the
>anger and passion.
>
>For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
>factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
>principles.


What's wrong with it?

>However for others, they may not have these images through
>ignorance,


I've been in them, and feel that it's a good way of raising chickens:
http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
That's not ignorance, but learning from first hand observation. There
are also terrible situations involved that I haven't known any "aras" to
point out, but overall I believe broilers have lives of positive value.

>or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
>rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a necessary
>'evil'.
>
>If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
>would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>
>I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic can
>seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.


I have never known Dutch to present anything that's worthy
of ethical consideration other than his own dishonesty, which of
course makes him very unethical imo.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


"Blueshark" > wrote

> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of the
> anger and passion.


- no "holds" barred -

> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
> principles. However for others, they may not have these images through
> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a necessary
> 'evil'.


Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
principles.

> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>
> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic can
> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.


There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong". What
is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it, it may
mean that they are using different terms of reference.



  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:45:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:42:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:38:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:nq10i21qdg0o24ih0t982f7aoc1oc8ip9l@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive
>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not
>>>>>>>>>>considering
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>LoL at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
>>>>>>>>conditions
>>>>>>>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate
>>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free,
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>that's
>>>>>>>>why cage-free eggs happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> magically happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering,
>>>>>>there's
>>>>>>nothing magical about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
>>>>>>> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you
>>>>>>> refuse
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> give them to BEGIN with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which
>>>>>>livestock
>>>>>>live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
>>>>>>embarrassment.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY to fools.
>>>>
>>>>The Logic of the Larder is a fool's argument.
>>>
>>> ONLY to fools.

>>
>>To a fool it makes perfect sense.

>
> LOL! No you fool. To a fool like you it makes no sense. Duh.


To a fool it makes perfect sense. That's you.






  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote
> On 6 Oct 2006 03:35:24 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning of
>>> the
>>> word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
>>> generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second
>>> line
>>> imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but
>>> then
>>> you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
>>> attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are
>>> implying
>>> the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
>>> responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
>>> obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
>>> winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic
>>> mode

>>
>>
>>I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>life, it can be no-holes barred.

>
> In Dutch's case it's an obvious example of


....reading you like a 10 cent paperback. Your whole position is propped up
with a series of equivocations, and you don't even know you're doing it.


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:00:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:45:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:42:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>news >>>>>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:38:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:nq10i21qdg0o24ih0t982f7aoc1oc8ip9l@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:47:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tell me again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive
>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>> for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not
>>>>>>>>>>>considering
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>LoL at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes WE are. If not, there would be no market for the products.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the
>>>>>>>>>conditions
>>>>>>>>>in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate
>>>>>>>>>their
>>>>>>>>>suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free,
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>that's
>>>>>>>>>why cage-free eggs happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> magically happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering,
>>>>>>>there's
>>>>>>>nothing magical about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
>>>>>>>> in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you
>>>>>>>> refuse
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> give them to BEGIN with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which
>>>>>>>livestock
>>>>>>>live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
>>>>>>>embarrassment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ONLY to fools.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Logic of the Larder is a fool's argument.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY to fools.
>>>
>>>To a fool it makes perfect sense.

>>
>> LOL! No you fool. To a fool like you it makes no sense. Duh.

>
>To a fool it makes perfect sense. That's you.


ONLY the most inconsiderate of fools COULD disregard animals'
lives when considering human influence on animals. DUH!
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 15:17:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On 6 Oct 2006 03:35:24 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning of
>>>> the
>>>> word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
>>>> generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second
>>>> line
>>>> imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but
>>>> then
>>>> you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
>>>> attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are
>>>> implying
>>>> the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
>>>> responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
>>>> obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
>>>> winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic
>>>> mode
>>>
>>>
>>>I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>>life, it can be no-holes barred.

>>
>> In Dutch's case it's an obvious example of

>
>...reading you like a 10 cent paperback. Your whole position is propped up
>with a series of


...facts which Dutch cannot comprehend much less appreciate.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 15:17:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On 6 Oct 2006 03:35:24 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning
>>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>> word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
>>>>> generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second
>>>>> line
>>>>> imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but
>>>>> then
>>>>> you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
>>>>> attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are
>>>>> implying
>>>>> the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
>>>>> responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
>>>>> obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
>>>>> winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic
>>>>> mode
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>>>life, it can be no-holes barred.
>>>
>>> In Dutch's case it's an obvious example of

>>
>>...reading you like a 10 cent paperback. Your whole position is propped up
>>with a series of


E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N-S time waster


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote
> ONLY the most inconsiderate of fools COULD disregard animals'
> lives when considering human influence on animals. DUH!


Explain why it is inconsiderate to them not to consider the fact that they
are born.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Blueshark" > wrote
>
>> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
>> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of the
>> anger and passion.

>
>- no "holds" barred -
>
>> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
>> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
>> principles. However for others, they may not have these images through
>> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
>> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a necessary
>> 'evil'.

>
>Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
>principles.
>
>> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
>> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>>
>> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic can
>> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.

>
>There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong". What
>is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
>another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it, it may
>mean that they are using different terms of reference.


"Wrong" in regards to what? You're not even capable of considering
whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food, because
you can't take their very lives (2a) into consideration. You can only think
about yourself to the extent that it prevents you from thinking about the
question.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 00:40:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 15:17:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On 6 Oct 2006 03:35:24 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
>>>>>> generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second
>>>>>> line
>>>>>> imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
>>>>>> attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are
>>>>>> implying
>>>>>> the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
>>>>>> responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
>>>>>> obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
>>>>>> winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic
>>>>>> mode
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>>>>life, it can be no-holes barred.
>>>>
>>>> In Dutch's case it's an obvious example of
>>>
>>>...reading you like a 10 cent paperback. Your whole position is propped up
>>>with a series of

>
>E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N-S time waster


I will say your most recent lie is about as efficient a way of insisting on
your inconsideration as you're likely to find. It still doesn't support it though,
and of course nothing does. But then you want to deny it too...you say
giving the consideration makes you feel "dirty", but you want people to
believe you do give it....what a fruitcake!
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:35:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> ONLY the most inconsiderate of fools COULD disregard animals'
>> lives when considering human influence on animals. DUH!

>
>Explain why it is inconsiderate to them not to consider the fact that they
>are born.


Because the idea is to determine whether on not it's cruel
TO THEM to be raised for food, and their LIFE (2a) is a very
significant aspect of the situation. To just not consider their
life is inconsiderate, but to oppose anyone ever doing it must
be something closer to malevolence really.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blueshark" > wrote
>>
>>> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
>>> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of the
>>> anger and passion.

>>
>>- no "holds" barred -
>>
>>> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
>>> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
>>> principles. However for others, they may not have these images through
>>> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
>>> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a necessary
>>> 'evil'.

>>
>>Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
>>principles.
>>
>>> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
>>> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>>>
>>> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic can
>>> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.

>>
>>There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong".
>>What
>>is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
>>another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it, it
>>may
>>mean that they are using different terms of reference.

>
> "Wrong" in regards to what?


Raising poultry, can't you read?

> You're not even capable of considering
> whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food


Of course I am, I just did. He considers poultry farms to be terribly cruel
places TO THE ANIMALS, I don't. I do not consider that it's cruel per se to
raise poultry for food. Is that not consideration of "whether or not it's
cruel TO THE ANIMALS"? You always seem to forget that when we talk about
"cruelty" or "ethics" that is by definition a value judgment of OUR actions
and attitudes.

> because
> you can't take their very lives (2a) into consideration.


I take the conditions of their lives into consideration. The only relevance
of "their very lives" is that if they were not alive there would be no
discussion. The question depends on the animals existing in the first place.

>You can only think
> about yourself to the extent that it prevents you from thinking about the
> question.


No, I thought about it enough to be able to differentiate between
considering whether or not it's cruel to raise animals, and considering
whether or not animals "benefit" by being brought into existence is relevant
to the questions of cruelty or ethics or if it is sophistry. That's why I am
able to see through your equivocations.


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 00:40:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 15:17:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On 6 Oct 2006 03:35:24 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
>>>>>>> generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the
>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>> imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
>>>>>>> attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are
>>>>>>> implying
>>>>>>> the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
>>>>>>> responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic
>>>>>>> mode
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>>>>>life, it can be no-holes barred.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Dutch's case it's an obvious example of
>>>>
>>>>...reading you like a 10 cent paperback. Your whole position is propped
>>>>up
>>>>with a series of

>>
>>E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N-S time waster

>
> I will say your most recent lie is about as efficient a way of
> insisting on
> your inconsideration as you're likely to find. It still doesn't support it
> though,
> and of course nothing does. But then you want to deny it too...you say
> giving the consideration makes you feel "dirty", but you want people to
> believe you do give it....what a fruitcake!


E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:35:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> ONLY the most inconsiderate of fools COULD disregard animals'
>>> lives when considering human influence on animals. DUH!

>>
>>Explain why it is inconsiderate to them not to consider the fact that they
>>are born.

>
> Because the idea is to determine whether on not it's cruel
> TO THEM to be raised for food, and their LIFE (2a) is a very
> significant aspect of the situation. To just not consider their
> life is inconsiderate, but to oppose anyone ever doing it must
> be something closer to malevolence really.


E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:42:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Blueshark" > wrote
>>>
>>>> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>>> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
>>>> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of the
>>>> anger and passion.
>>>
>>>- no "holds" barred -
>>>
>>>> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
>>>> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
>>>> principles. However for others, they may not have these images through
>>>> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
>>>> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a necessary
>>>> 'evil'.
>>>
>>>Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
>>>principles.
>>>
>>>> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
>>>> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>>>>
>>>> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic can
>>>> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong".
>>>What
>>>is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
>>>another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it, it
>>>may
>>>mean that they are using different terms of reference.

>>
>> "Wrong" in regards to what?

>
>Raising poultry, can't you read?


What aspect of it, you poor moron.

>> You're not even capable of considering
>> whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food

>
>Of course I am, I just did. He considers poultry farms to be terribly cruel
>places TO THE ANIMALS, I don't. I do not consider that it's cruel per se to
>raise poultry for food. Is that not consideration of "whether or not it's
>cruel TO THE ANIMALS"?


So you DO consider their lives to be a consideration, as you've
been trying to tell me they are NOT...at least you're pretending
that you can do it right now...but later you'll be saying it makes
you feel dirty and all that crap again...

>You always seem to forget that when we talk about
>"cruelty" or "ethics" that is by definition a value judgment of OUR actions
>and attitudes.


In regards to how they influence THE ANIMALS, NOT your stupid
imaginary ethical points, stars, feathers...bullshits.

>> because
>> you can't take their very lives (2a) into consideration.

>
>I take the conditions of their lives into consideration. The only relevance
>of "their very lives" is that if they were not alive there would be no
>discussion.


It didn't take you long to stop considering their lives again. You
just have no clue what you think you think from one moment to
the next, even though you never can explain how you disagree
with yourself. Damn you're screwed up.

>The question depends on the animals existing in the first place.


And why you don't want them to. To some people the future
IS worthy of consideration, you poor shallow fool.

>>You can only think
>> about yourself to the extent that it prevents you from thinking about the
>> question.

>
>No, I thought about it enough to be able to differentiate between
>considering whether or not it's cruel to raise animals, and considering
>whether or not animals "benefit" by being brought into existence is relevant
>to the questions of cruelty or ethics or if it is sophistry.


LIFE (1b and 2a) is an aspect of human influence on animals that you
"aras" can NOT afford to take into consideration, because it works
AGAINST the philosophy and objective of "ar".

>That's why I am able to see through your equivocations.


Your cognitive dissonance is what bewilders you whenever someone
appreciates the lives (1b and 2a) of any animals, being triggered by the
purity of your own selfishness and your shame of being so selfish.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:44:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:35:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> ONLY the most inconsiderate of fools COULD disregard animals'
>>>> lives when considering human influence on animals. DUH!
>>>
>>>Explain why it is inconsiderate to them not to consider the fact that they
>>>are born.

>>
>> Because the idea is to determine whether on not it's cruel
>> TO THEM to be raised for food, and their LIFE (2a) is a very
>> significant aspect of the situation. To just not consider their
>> life is inconsiderate, but to oppose anyone ever doing it must
>> be something closer to malevolence really.

>
>E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N


Even as stupid as you are, you can't really expect anyone
else to believe there is equivocation when the exact meaning
for the word you're confused about is provided FOR you, you
poor moron.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:42:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Blueshark" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>>>> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
>>>>> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of the
>>>>> anger and passion.
>>>>
>>>>- no "holds" barred -
>>>>
>>>>> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
>>>>> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
>>>>> principles. However for others, they may not have these images through
>>>>> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
>>>>> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a necessary
>>>>> 'evil'.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
>>>>principles.
>>>>
>>>>> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
>>>>> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic
>>>>> can
>>>>> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.
>>>>
>>>>There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong".
>>>>What
>>>>is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
>>>>another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it, it
>>>>may
>>>>mean that they are using different terms of reference.
>>>
>>> "Wrong" in regards to what?

>>
>>Raising poultry, can't you read?

>
> What aspect of it


Doing it.

>>> You're not even capable of considering
>>> whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food

>>
>>Of course I am, I just did. He considers poultry farms to be terribly
>>cruel
>>places TO THE ANIMALS, I don't. I do not consider that it's cruel per se
>>to
>>raise poultry for food. Is that not consideration of "whether or not it's
>>cruel TO THE ANIMALS"?

>
> So you DO consider their lives to be a consideration, as you've
> been trying to tell me they are NOT...at least you're pretending
> that you can do it right now...but later you'll be saying it makes
> you feel dirty and all that crap again...


What is wrong is implying their very life is releveant, not "life" the
day-to-day conditions that we provide but the very fact that they are
brought into existence.

>
>>You always seem to forget that when we talk about
>>"cruelty" or "ethics" that is by definition a value judgment of OUR
>>actions
>>and attitudes.

>
> In regards to how they influence THE ANIMALS, NOT your stupid
> imaginary ethical points, stars, feathers...bullshits.


It is inherently about a value judgment of OUR actions and attitudes. How
OUR treatment and attitude towards those animals reflects on us as human
beings. That's what this discussion is about.

>
>>> because
>>> you can't take their very lives (2a) into consideration.

>>
>>I take the conditions of their lives into consideration. The only
>>relevance
>>of "their very lives" is that if they were not alive there would be no
>>discussion.

>
> It didn't take you long to stop considering their lives again. You
> just have no clue what you think you think from one moment to
> the next, even though you never can explain how you disagree
> with yourself. Damn you're screwed up.


Do you understand what an equivocation is?

>>The question depends on the animals existing in the first place.

>
> And why you don't want them to. To some people the future
> IS worthy of consideration, you poor shallow fool.


Answer the question above.

>
>>>You can only think
>>> about yourself to the extent that it prevents you from thinking about
>>> the
>>> question.

>>
>>No, I thought about it enough to be able to differentiate between
>>considering whether or not it's cruel to raise animals, and considering
>>whether or not animals "benefit" by being brought into existence is
>>relevant
>>to the questions of cruelty or ethics or if it is sophistry.

>
> LIFE (1b and 2a) is an aspect of human influence on animals that you
> "aras" can NOT afford to take into consideration, because it works
> AGAINST the philosophy and objective of "ar".
>
>>That's why I am able to see through your equivocations.

>
> Your cognitive dissonance is what bewilders you whenever someone
> appreciates the lives (1b and 2a) of any animals, being triggered by the
> purity of your own selfishness and your shame of being so selfish.


Stop equivocating.


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:44:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:35:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> ONLY the most inconsiderate of fools COULD disregard animals'
>>>>> lives when considering human influence on animals. DUH!
>>>>
>>>>Explain why it is inconsiderate to them not to consider the fact that
>>>>they
>>>>are born.
>>>
>>> Because the idea is to determine whether on not it's cruel
>>> TO THEM to be raised for food, and their LIFE (2a) is a very
>>> significant aspect of the situation. To just not consider their
>>> life is inconsiderate, but to oppose anyone ever doing it must
>>> be something closer to malevolence really.

>>
>>E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N

>
> Even as stupid as you are, you can't really expect anyone
> else to believe there is equivocation when the exact meaning
> for the word you're confused about is provided FOR you, you
> poor moron.


Get this straight, everyone except you can SEE the equivocations that you're
using.




  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:07:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:42:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Blueshark" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines someone's
>>>>>> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
>>>>>> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of the
>>>>>> anger and passion.
>>>>>
>>>>>- no "holds" barred -
>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
>>>>>> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
>>>>>> principles. However for others, they may not have these images through
>>>>>> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
>>>>>> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a necessary
>>>>>> 'evil'.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
>>>>>principles.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
>>>>>> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong".
>>>>>What
>>>>>is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
>>>>>another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it, it
>>>>>may
>>>>>mean that they are using different terms of reference.
>>>>
>>>> "Wrong" in regards to what?
>>>
>>>Raising poultry, can't you read?

>>
>> What aspect of it

>
>Doing it.


That was impressively stupid even for you.

>>>> You're not even capable of considering
>>>> whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food
>>>
>>>Of course I am, I just did. He considers poultry farms to be terribly
>>>cruel
>>>places TO THE ANIMALS, I don't. I do not consider that it's cruel per se
>>>to
>>>raise poultry for food. Is that not consideration of "whether or not it's
>>>cruel TO THE ANIMALS"?

>>
>> So you DO consider their lives to be a consideration, as you've
>> been trying to tell me they are NOT...at least you're pretending
>> that you can do it right now...but later you'll be saying it makes
>> you feel dirty and all that crap again...

>
>What is wrong is implying their very life is releveant, not "life" the
>day-to-day conditions that we provide but the very fact that they are
>brought into existence.


All that is relevant.

>>>You always seem to forget that when we talk about
>>>"cruelty" or "ethics" that is by definition a value judgment of OUR
>>>actions
>>>and attitudes.

>>
>> In regards to how they influence THE ANIMALS, NOT your stupid
>> imaginary ethical points, stars, feathers...bullshits.

>
>It is inherently about a value judgment of OUR actions and attitudes. How
>OUR treatment and attitude towards those animals reflects on us as human
>beings. That's what this discussion is about.


Whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food
is what the discussion is about, and we can't consider that without
considering their lives (1b and 2a).

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:07:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:42:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Blueshark" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines
>>>>>>> someone's
>>>>>>> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
>>>>>>> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> anger and passion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- no "holds" barred -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
>>>>>>> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
>>>>>>> principles. However for others, they may not have these images
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
>>>>>>> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a
>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>> 'evil'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
>>>>>>principles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
>>>>>>> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong".
>>>>>>What
>>>>>>is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
>>>>>>another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it,
>>>>>>it
>>>>>>may
>>>>>>mean that they are using different terms of reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wrong" in regards to what?
>>>>
>>>>Raising poultry, can't you read?
>>>
>>> What aspect of it

>>
>>Doing it.

>
> That was impressively stupid even for you.


In what way? The question IS "is it wrong to raise poultry?" It refers to
the whole act of doing it. "What aspect of it" is an impressively
obfuscatory question.

>
>>>>> You're not even capable of considering
>>>>> whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food
>>>>
>>>>Of course I am, I just did. He considers poultry farms to be terribly
>>>>cruel
>>>>places TO THE ANIMALS, I don't. I do not consider that it's cruel per se
>>>>to
>>>>raise poultry for food. Is that not consideration of "whether or not
>>>>it's
>>>>cruel TO THE ANIMALS"?
>>>
>>> So you DO consider their lives to be a consideration, as you've
>>> been trying to tell me they are NOT...at least you're pretending
>>> that you can do it right now...but later you'll be saying it makes
>>> you feel dirty and all that crap again...

>>
>>What is wrong is implying their very life is releveant, not "life" the
>>day-to-day conditions that we provide but the very fact that they are
>>brought into existence.

>
> All that is relevant.


No it's not, except to ARAs.

>>>>You always seem to forget that when we talk about
>>>>"cruelty" or "ethics" that is by definition a value judgment of OUR
>>>>actions
>>>>and attitudes.
>>>
>>> In regards to how they influence THE ANIMALS, NOT your stupid
>>> imaginary ethical points, stars, feathers...bullshits.

>>
>>It is inherently about a value judgment of OUR actions and attitudes. How
>>OUR treatment and attitude towards those animals reflects on us as human
>>beings. That's what this discussion is about.

>
> Whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food
> is what the discussion is about, and we can't consider that without
> considering their lives (1b and 2a).


There's that fuzzy, misleading statement again. I can (and must) consider
whether it's cruel without considering the fact that they"get to experience
life" just as I can (and must) consider whether or not it's cruel to beat my
children without considering that they "got to experience life". In fact
that factor has no relevance or place in this consideration.




  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

I think there is a danger of going too deep into the ethics as much as
there is glossing it over.

I think Dutch raises many salient and far-reaching points.

I feel that to cause cruelty to another living species purely for one's
pleasure is unethical.

I can then apply this statement to farming off various animals, by
certain companies, in certain contexts.

I also feel that the burden of knowledge gives one the accountability
to their actions. Thus if one knows the wrong and continues to repeat
it, perhaps shifting the blame elsewhere is also unethical.

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:07:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:42:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message
> m...
> >>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Blueshark" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines
> >>>>>>> someone's
> >>>>>>> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
> >>>>>>> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> anger and passion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>- no "holds" barred -
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
> >>>>>>> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
> >>>>>>> principles. However for others, they may not have these images
> >>>>>>> through
> >>>>>>> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
> >>>>>>> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a
> >>>>>>> necessary
> >>>>>>> 'evil'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
> >>>>>>principles.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
> >>>>>>> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong".
> >>>>>>What
> >>>>>>is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
> >>>>>>another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it,
> >>>>>>it
> >>>>>>may
> >>>>>>mean that they are using different terms of reference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wrong" in regards to what?
> >>>>
> >>>>Raising poultry, can't you read?
> >>>
> >>> What aspect of it
> >>
> >>Doing it.

> >
> > That was impressively stupid even for you.

>
> In what way? The question IS "is it wrong to raise poultry?" It refers to
> the whole act of doing it. "What aspect of it" is an impressively
> obfuscatory question.
>
> >
> >>>>> You're not even capable of considering
> >>>>> whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food
> >>>>
> >>>>Of course I am, I just did. He considers poultry farms to be terribly
> >>>>cruel
> >>>>places TO THE ANIMALS, I don't. I do not consider that it's cruel per se
> >>>>to
> >>>>raise poultry for food. Is that not consideration of "whether or not
> >>>>it's
> >>>>cruel TO THE ANIMALS"?
> >>>
> >>> So you DO consider their lives to be a consideration, as you've
> >>> been trying to tell me they are NOT...at least you're pretending
> >>> that you can do it right now...but later you'll be saying it makes
> >>> you feel dirty and all that crap again...
> >>
> >>What is wrong is implying their very life is releveant, not "life" the
> >>day-to-day conditions that we provide but the very fact that they are
> >>brought into existence.

> >
> > All that is relevant.

>
> No it's not, except to ARAs.
>
> >>>>You always seem to forget that when we talk about
> >>>>"cruelty" or "ethics" that is by definition a value judgment of OUR
> >>>>actions
> >>>>and attitudes.
> >>>
> >>> In regards to how they influence THE ANIMALS, NOT your stupid
> >>> imaginary ethical points, stars, feathers...bullshits.
> >>
> >>It is inherently about a value judgment of OUR actions and attitudes. How
> >>OUR treatment and attitude towards those animals reflects on us as human
> >>beings. That's what this discussion is about.

> >
> > Whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food
> > is what the discussion is about, and we can't consider that without
> > considering their lives (1b and 2a).

>
> There's that fuzzy, misleading statement again. I can (and must) consider
> whether it's cruel without considering the fact that they"get to experience
> life" just as I can (and must) consider whether or not it's cruel to beat my
> children without considering that they "got to experience life". In fact
> that factor has no relevance or place in this consideration.


  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:31:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:07:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:42:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Blueshark" > wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think, when defending a decision that in many ways defines
>>>>>>>> someone's
>>>>>>>> life, it can be no-holes barred. Images of animal cruelty can be
>>>>>>>> permanently engraved on someone's mind. This could be the root of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> anger and passion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>- no "holds" barred -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, I cannot eat poultry because I have so many images of
>>>>>>>> factory farms in my mind. The way they are farmed is wrong, in my
>>>>>>>> principles. However for others, they may not have these images
>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>> ignorance, or perhaps they have principles which allow them to
>>>>>>>> rationlise this farming practices. Perhaps they see it as a
>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>> 'evil'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps they see nothing inherently wrong in it, according to their
>>>>>>>principles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we have images of how sweatshops work in our mind, I am sure that
>>>>>>>> would make us think twice of buying their produce.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think in these debates, it is often personal, and a clear unethic
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> seen be someone but can be completely glossed over by another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no such thing as "an unethic", the correct word is "a wrong".
>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>is seen is a clear wrong by one person may *not* be seen as a wrong by
>>>>>>>another person. That does not necessarily mean they glossed over it,
>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>may
>>>>>>>mean that they are using different terms of reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wrong" in regards to what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Raising poultry, can't you read?
>>>>
>>>> What aspect of it
>>>
>>>Doing it.

>>
>> That was impressively stupid even for you.

>
>In what way? The question IS "is it wrong to raise poultry?"


That involves consideration of their lives, so you are
necessarily lost from the start.

>It refers to
>the whole act of doing it. "What aspect of it" is an impressively
>obfuscatory question.


It just asks for more detail than you are mentally capable
of giving any consideration because considering details is far
too complicated for you. As I pointed out, you are necessarily
lost from the start.

>>>>>> You're not even capable of considering
>>>>>> whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course I am, I just did. He considers poultry farms to be terribly
>>>>>cruel
>>>>>places TO THE ANIMALS, I don't. I do not consider that it's cruel per se
>>>>>to
>>>>>raise poultry for food. Is that not consideration of "whether or not
>>>>>it's
>>>>>cruel TO THE ANIMALS"?
>>>>
>>>> So you DO consider their lives to be a consideration, as you've
>>>> been trying to tell me they are NOT...at least you're pretending
>>>> that you can do it right now...but later you'll be saying it makes
>>>> you feel dirty and all that crap again...
>>>
>>>What is wrong is implying their very life is releveant, not "life" the
>>>day-to-day conditions that we provide but the very fact that they are
>>>brought into existence.

>>
>> All that is relevant.

>
>No it's not, except to ARAs.


It's ALL relevant to anyone who considers human influence on
animals, but you are necessarily lost from the start.

>>>>>You always seem to forget that when we talk about
>>>>>"cruelty" or "ethics" that is by definition a value judgment of OUR
>>>>>actions
>>>>>and attitudes.
>>>>
>>>> In regards to how they influence THE ANIMALS, NOT your stupid
>>>> imaginary ethical points, stars, feathers...bullshits.
>>>
>>>It is inherently about a value judgment of OUR actions and attitudes. How
>>>OUR treatment and attitude towards those animals reflects on us as human
>>>beings. That's what this discussion is about.

>>
>> Whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to be raised for food
>> is what the discussion is about, and we can't consider that without
>> considering their lives (1b and 2a).

>
>There's that fuzzy, misleading statement again.


I told you you are lost from the start.

>I can (and must) consider
>whether it's cruel without considering the fact that they"get to experience
>life"


LOL!!! Let's see an example of you trying to do that, Little Lost One.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On 13 Oct 2006 00:47:03 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:

>I think there is a danger of going too deep into the ethics as much as
>there is glossing it over.


There is a definite danger to "aras" to think about some facts
and details because they work AGAINST what you WANT to
believe. Considering them puts the world you've created inside
your head in danger of getting contaminated by reality...your
cognitive dissonance helps you to shield yourself from the evils
of reality to a very impressive extent, but it also causes mental
discomfort for you at the same time.

>I think Dutch raises many salient and far-reaching points.


Of course, because the restrictions Dutch would impose are
intended to PROTECT what you "aras" want to believe, from
facts and considerations that would work against it. DUH!

>I feel that to cause cruelty to another living species purely for one's
>pleasure is unethical.
>
>I can then apply this statement to farming off various animals, by
>certain companies, in certain contexts.


You ONLY care about the deaths of animals who would have no
life at all if they weren't raised to be eaten, yet you care nothing
about the deaths of those who would have LONGER lives if not
for our--including YOUR-- influence on them.

>I also feel that the burden of knowledge gives one the accountability
>to their actions. Thus if one knows the wrong and continues to repeat
>it, perhaps shifting the blame elsewhere is also unethical.


We all contribute to the deaths of wildlife, but ONLY consumers
of animal products contribute to any lives that are worth considering.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:09:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:44:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:35:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> ONLY the most inconsiderate of fools COULD disregard animals'
>>>>>> lives when considering human influence on animals. DUH!
>>>>>
>>>>>Explain why it is inconsiderate to them not to consider the fact that
>>>>>they
>>>>>are born.
>>>>
>>>> Because the idea is to determine whether on not it's cruel
>>>> TO THEM to be raised for food, and their LIFE (2a) is a very
>>>> significant aspect of the situation. To just not consider their
>>>> life is inconsiderate, but to oppose anyone ever doing it must
>>>> be something closer to malevolence really.
>>>
>>>E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N

>>
>> Even as stupid as you are, you can't really expect anyone
>> else to believe there is equivocation when the exact meaning
>> for the word you're confused about is provided FOR you, you
>> poor moron.

>
>Get this straight, everyone except you can SEE the equivocations that you're
>using.


Translation: Of course your "ar" brothers and sisters will desperately
go along with any half ass-reasons you can invent for refusing to consider
decent AW to be ethically equivalent or superior to "ar". You people are
pathetic, but amusing.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:31:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]

>>I can (and must) consider
>>whether it's cruel without considering the fact that they "get to
>>experience
>>life"

>
> LOL!!! Let's see an example of you trying to do that


*poultry*
Consideration 1 - the conditions under which they live -
- they run around a barn eating and shitting, sounds ok.
Consideration 2 - why they are killed
- I ask that they be killed so I can eat, sounds fair.
Conclusion: not cruelty

*factory farmed eggs*
Consideration 1 - the conditions under which they live -
- they sit crammed in little cages, sounds bad.
Consideration 2 - why they are killed
- I ask that they be killed so I can eat, sounds fair.
Conclusion: cruelty

*fighting cocks*
Consideration 1 - the conditions under which they live -
- they run around a barn eating and shitting, sounds ok
Consideration 2 - why they are killed
- I ask that they be killed so I can get my jollies watching them rip each
other apart, not a moral motive.
Conclusion: cruelty

Not relevant in any of the above judgments - the fact that they got to
experience life. We could insert that "consideration" in all of the above
scenarios and it would make no difference to the outcome. It's a red
herring.


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:09:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:44:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:35:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> ONLY the most inconsiderate of fools COULD disregard animals'
>>>>>>> lives when considering human influence on animals. DUH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Explain why it is inconsiderate to them not to consider the fact that
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>are born.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the idea is to determine whether on not it's cruel
>>>>> TO THEM to be raised for food, and their LIFE (2a) is a very
>>>>> significant aspect of the situation. To just not consider their
>>>>> life is inconsiderate, but to oppose anyone ever doing it must
>>>>> be something closer to malevolence really.
>>>>
>>>>E-Q-U-I-V-O-C-A-T-I-O-N
>>>
>>> Even as stupid as you are, you can't really expect anyone
>>> else to believe there is equivocation when the exact meaning
>>> for the word you're confused about is provided FOR you, you
>>> poor moron.

>>
>>Get this straight, everyone except you can SEE the equivocations that
>>you're
>>using.

>
> Translation: Of course your "ar" brothers and sisters will desperately
> go along with any half ass-reasons you can invent for refusing to consider
> decent AW to be ethically equivalent or superior to "ar". You people are
> pathetic, but amusing.


You're pathetic and an idiot.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dietary ethics dh@. Vegan 743 21-05-2013 06:17 PM
Dietary ethics dh@. Vegan 0 03-07-2012 05:42 PM
WSJ on the WA ethics debate DaleW Wine 11 30-05-2009 10:36 PM
What are the ethics regarding AR ( was: Cow Milk?) dh@. Vegan 0 29-09-2006 10:53 PM
Ethics of Cannibals Cannibals for Christ Vegan 48 24-03-2004 10:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"