ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > What "valid points" doesn't he address
>
> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.

He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.

> Do we place the
> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?

Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
things.

> Steven Rose also makes this
> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.

There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
within that approach too.

> Wetlesen's
> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.

.... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.

> Regan spends half his
> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
> little addressing their points.

He did address their points, and what he said was pretty fair comment.
He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
position to criticize him about that.

> The people that uploaded the video, the
> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.

Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On Aug 7, 7:20 am, "Laurie" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> > I see. It is now up on my webpage ...
>
> URL?
>

http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html

> Does it have stuff like:http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt??
>

I did briefly put up a photo of him and a few links to some of his
greatest hits, but I took that down.

> > You really are a funny clown, Ball.
>
> No; noBalls is a lonely, hateful, vulgar, self-destructive psychopath
> who tries to get attention and waste sincere peoples' time by being vulgar
> and insulting, for that is all he knows. He is just crying out for help.
>
> "It's nothing but a bit of schoolyard namecalling." - noBalls
>
> Laurie

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> What "valid points" doesn't he address
>> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
>> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.
>
> He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
> work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.

She is responding to the rhetoric of his speech, which is based on the
simplistic premise that the world is divided into humans (the oppressor)
and non-humans (the oppressed) It's not her fault that he chooses to
make an impassioned speech which does not reflect his true beliefs.

>
>> Do we place the
>> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?
>
> Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
> Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
> things.

But it follows from his speech which refers simply to humans and
non-human animals.

>
>> Steven Rose also makes this
>> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
>> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.
>
> There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
> within that approach too.

Perhaps, but not his speech.

>
>> Wetlesen's
>> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.
>
> ... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.
>
>> Regan spends half his
>> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
>> little addressing their points.
>
> He did address their points,

He said almost nothing about any of their points except mocking a remark
made by one speaker.

> and what he said was pretty fair comment.

It was rude and patronizing. It made him look weak.

> He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
> position to criticize him about that.

He was in a position where he ought to be polite and respectful, he
chose not to be, to his discredit. I'm not a renown philosopher, just a
guy with an opinion on usenet.

>
>> The people that uploaded the video, the
>> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
>> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.
>
> Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.

Perhaps we could get hold of them.

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On Aug 7, 2:33 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> What "valid points" doesn't he address
> >> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
> >> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.
>
> > He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
> > work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.
>
> She is responding to the rhetoric of his speech, which is based on the
> simplistic premise that the world is divided into humans (the oppressor)
> and non-humans (the oppressed) It's not her fault that he chooses to
> make an impassioned speech which does not reflect his true beliefs.
>

He never implied that all non-human animals should be lumped together.

>
>
> >> Do we place the
> >> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?
>
> > Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
> > Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
> > things.
>
> But it follows from his speech which refers simply to humans and
> non-human animals.
>

No, it does not. Viruses do not belong to the animal kingdom, it's
borderline whether they are even organisms. They are certainly not
sentient, let alone "subjects-of-a-life". Obviously to ask "do we
place the same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee" is absurd,
Regan's not committed to any such thing. He's quite right to refer her
to his work where he gives a detailed discussion of the issue of where
to draw the line.

>
>
> >> Steven Rose also makes this
> >> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
> >> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
> > within that approach too.
>
> Perhaps, but not his speech.
>

In his speech he emphasized certain aspects of his work rather than
others.

>
>
> >> Wetlesen's
> >> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.
>
> > ... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.
>
> >> Regan spends half his
> >> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
> >> little addressing their points.
>
> > He did address their points,
>
> He said almost nothing about any of their points except mocking a remark
> made by one speaker.
>

False.

> > and what he said was pretty fair comment.
>
> It was rude and patronizing. It made him look weak.
>
> > He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
> > position to criticize him about that.
>
> He was in a position where he ought to be polite and respectful, he
> chose not to be, to his discredit. I'm not a renown philosopher, just a
> guy with an opinion on usenet.
>

Well, for what it's worth, I lose respect for you when you're rude and
patronizing too.

>
>
> >> The people that uploaded the video, the
> >> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
> >> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.
>
> > Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.
>
> Perhaps we could get hold of them.

That would be great.

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On Aug 7, 7:24 am, "Laurie" > wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message >
> > Take the name off your webpage, fruit. Now.
>

You *really* need to develop your negotiating skills, Ball. I wonder
how long it will be before you have the courage to show your face
round here again.

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> >>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> >>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
> >
> > Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker.
>
> If you like rude, condescending blowhards.

Projection. And isn't ~ball~ your idol?

> What colossal gall,
> addressing those other speakers as if they were naughty students who
> hadn't done their homework.

The boot fits. They wore it.

> Every one a highly respected person with
> more credibility in their little fingers than Regan can ever aspire to.

As if you'd know anything about credibility and respect.

> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
> childish display.

He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.

> Regan gets so much adulation from the converted, like you, that he
> believes his own press clippings. He's so typical of ARAs, he make me puke.

You're so full of hatred and jealousy, you're killing yourself.

'The Wannabe

Motivation: craves respect for being competent and
professional despite lacking in competence and professionalism
Mindset: deceptive
Malice: low to medium; when held accountable, medium to high

a.. similar to the attention-seeker
b.. is one of life's chronic underperformers and is best
described as ineffectual in everything
c.. craves undeserved respect and attention and will go to
considerable lengths to acquire them
d.. hangs around the fringes of a profession
e.. not professionally qualified but claims they are a
professional because they sit next to a professional or work
alongside or near or in the midst of professionals, or provide
services to professionals
f.. lacks the ability, competence and professionalism to be
a qualified professional
g.. wants so much to be seen as competent professional
person but is unable and unwilling to put in the work to
achieve this
h.. is unable and unwilling to apply knowledge gained
from experience but instead devotes time and effort to
improving skills of deception, manipulation, false claim,
denial and projection
i.. may have been rejected by their chosen profession
for lack of competence
j.. is spiteful towards and despises anyone who is qualified
in the profession from which the bully has been excluded by
virtue of lack of competence
k.. is likely to be vilifying the profession they want to
belong to or which they're claiming to be part of or which
they are claiming to represent
l.. displays a deep-seated envy and jealousy of the
professionals that he or she works alongside or claims to serve
m.. harbours a bitter resentment, grudge, distaste and
contempt for the professionals that he or she works alongside
or claims to serve
n.. is likely to be criticising, condemning, disadvantaging and
causing detriment to the professionals he or she works alongside
or claims to serve
o.. may seek positions of power over the professionals he
or she works alongside or claims to serve, perhaps to facilitate
a compulsion to criticise, condemn, disadvantage and cause
detriment
p.. is irresistibly drawn to organisations, roles and positions
which offer the wannabe power and control over the
professionals s/he despises (eg inspection regimes, approval
roles, regulatory bodies, ticksheet compliance schemes,
political correctness police, trade union official, etc) - and is
often described as a talentless jobsworth
q.. when in a position of power associates with and makes
alliances with or surrounds him or herself with clones, drones,
minions, fellow wannabes, sycophants and brown-nosers
r.. instinctively objects to any suggestion of change, reform,
improvement, progress or evolution, but has no viable or
positive alternatives of their own
s.. opposes every idea, suggestion, opinion, contribution or
reform on principle but has no original, positive, constructive
ideas or contributions of his or her own
t.. is likely to plagiarise and steal others' ideas which are
then put forward as their own
u.. may place undue emphasis or reliance on an old, minor
or irrelevant qualification to bolster their claim of belonging
to or deserving to belong to a profession
v.. may claim ambiguous or misleading or bogus or
fraudulent qualifications, associations and experience
w.. displays a superior sense of entitlement because they
associate with or serve higher performers
x.. emotionally immature
y.. controlling
z.. easily provoked
aa.. when challenged is adept at rewriting history to portray
themselves as competent, professional and successful, regardless
of multiple witnesses and overwhelming evidence to the contrary
ab.. quickly and loudly feigns victimhood when exposed and
held accountable, often repeatedly and loudly accusing the
person holding them accountable of being a bully
ac.. when held accountable makes conflicting and contradictory
threats and demands (eg demands apology but orders the other
person not to communicate with them)
ad.. when held accountable makes lots of loud but empty threats
(eg of legal action such as libel, slander, defamation etc)
ae.. only carries out threats of legal action when in the presence
of a superior serial bully, especially a sociopath type
af.. may indulge their jealousy and envy of professionals or those
they claim to serve by pursuing vindictive vendettas, sometimes
with the help of a superior serial bully, especially a sociopath type
ag.. is easily manipulated and controlled by a superior serial bully
ah.. may exploit some perceived vulnerability in self to ensure
drone loyalty
ai.. gives the appearance of loyalty to drones but will discard
them when they've served their purpose
....'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Wannabe

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...

>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
>> childish display.
>
> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.

They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature", as you converts like
to refer to your blessed sacred scrolls, several of them remark on that
fact, and they *reject* the arguments. It's not the revealed truth of
God you know, they're the *opinions* of people that agree with Reagan,
and *his own books*. He's an arrogant toad addressing highly respected
authors and fellow philosophers in that manner, but typical of the ARA,
he feels superior to them and entitled to verbally abuse them.

<snip usual verbal abuse>

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:GPWti.39889$fJ5.24475@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>
> >> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
> >> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
> >> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
> >> childish display.
> >
> > He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
>
> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",

The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.

<snip usual verbal abuse>

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:GPWti.39889$fJ5.24475@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
>>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
>>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
>>>> childish display.
>>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
>> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
>
> The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.

Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
they are to be treated like ignorant children.

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On Aug 8, 5:18 am, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:GPWti.39889$fJ5.24475@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
> >>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
> >>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
> >>>> childish display.
> >>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
> >> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
>
> > The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.
>
> Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
> they are to be treated like ignorant children.

No. They made arguments which appeared to show a lack of familiarity
with the literature, therefore Regan remarked on that fact.

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:18 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:GPWti.39889$fJ5.24475@pd7urf1no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
>>>>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
>>>>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
>>>>>> childish display.
>>>>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
>>>> They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
>>> The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.
>> Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
>> they are to be treated like ignorant children.
>
> No. They made arguments which appeared to show a lack of familiarity
> with the literature, therefore Regan remarked on that fact.

No, they made arguments which show that they don't subscribe to "the
literature" referring to books by "Animal Rights" authors like himself,
and he didn't simply "remark", he reacted in a completely inappropriate
supercilious manner. In doing so he harmed his own credibility more than
that of those towards whom he was directing his condescending attitude.
He would have left a much better impression if he had used that time to
inform rather than ridicule. The context was a formal debate in a
university forum, not a usenet slugfest.

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:20:38 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>pearl wrote:
>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>
>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
>>> childish display.
>>
>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
>
>They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature", as you converts like
>to refer to your blessed sacred scrolls, several of them remark on that
>fact, and they *reject* the arguments. It's not the revealed truth of
>God you know, they're the *opinions* of people that agree with Reagan,
>and *his own books*. He's an arrogant toad addressing highly respected
>authors and fellow philosophers in that manner, but typical of the ARA,
>he feels superior to them and entitled to verbally abuse them.
>
><snip usual verbal abuse>
>
>

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

While I am all for treating animals humanely... Tom takes it to a level of
stupidity. Conveniently forgetting that carnivores do exist on all levels of
the animal kingdom.


"Dr L Oh" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:20:38 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message
>>> news:XhQti.39249$fJ5.34707@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>>> He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
>>>> the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
>>>> read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
>>>> childish display.
>>>
>>> He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
>>
>>They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature", as you converts like
>>to refer to your blessed sacred scrolls, several of them remark on that
>>fact, and they *reject* the arguments. It's not the revealed truth of
>>God you know, they're the *opinions* of people that agree with Reagan,
>>and *his own books*. He's an arrogant toad addressing highly respected
>>authors and fellow philosophers in that manner, but typical of the ARA,
>>he feels superior to them and entitled to verbally abuse them.
>>
>><snip usual verbal abuse>
>>
>>
>

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

"GoMavs" > wrote in message news:CvdBi.6060$5h.5244@trnddc03...
>
> While I am all for treating animals humanely... Tom takes it to a level of
> stupidity. Conveniently forgetting that carnivores do exist on all levels of
> the animal kingdom.

Oxymoron.

'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold
blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction"
[syn: cold, cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or
resembling something nonhuman; "something dark and
inhuman in form"; "a babel of inhuman noises"
...'
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

On 5/30/2007 12:24 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> the animals themselves should also always be given
> much consideration.

That doesn't mean anything. All you mean is that you want the animals
to exist.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

On 5/31/2007 10:52 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>
>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>> much consideration.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>> lives".
>
> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.

No. Their lives - their existence, you mean - deserves *no*
consideration whatever. Their welfare deserves consideration, *if* they
do exist, but not their lives per se.
--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

On 5/31/2007 10:52 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>> the livestock exist.
>
> If you think you have any clue about any of this,
> then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> do exist.

You aren't talking about livestock who do exist, you stupid Goo - you're
talking about livestock you *want* to exist that don't yet.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>>>> much consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>>> lives".
>>>
>>> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
>>> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
>>> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
>>
>> Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
>> lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.
>
> So you selfishly continue to insist

No, the selfishness is all on your side, Goo. There's nothing wrong
with being self-interested, Goo. There *is* something wrong with trying
to paint your self-interest as altruistic, when there's no altruism at all.


> Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
> the animals gain?

The animals "gain" nothing, Goo. Coming into existence is not a "gain"
or "benefit" for them, Goo.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On 31 May 2007 13:04:52 -0700, Rudy > wrote:
>
>> On May 31, 11:50 am, > wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
>>>> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>>>> the livestock exist.
>>>
>>>> If you think you have any clue about any of this
>>>
>>> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
>>> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.
>>
>> Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
>> their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>>
>> ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
>> to exist, for moral reasons
>
> That's a fantasy of yours

No. It's all you're blabbering about, ****wit. "Consider their lives"
= want the livestock to exist. That's all you mean by it.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:26:05 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On May 31, 11:50 am, > wrote:
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>>>>> the livestock exist.
>>>>
>>>>> If you think you have any clue about any of this
>>>>
>>>> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
>>>> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
>>>> Zero.
>>>
>>> Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
>>> their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>>>
>>> ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
>>> to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
>>> eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
>>> worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
>>> has. No one ever will.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
>>>> who say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
>>>
>>> Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
>>> acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...
>>
>> He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
>> argument back on them.
>
> I recognise a significant aspect of human influence on animals

No.


>
>> He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
>> liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
>> of the very species of animals you are liberating.
>
> You are trying to defend ELIMINATION as always

He's not. He's simply pointing out - yes! - that people who want to
eliminate livestock animals are *not* failing to give adequate
consideration to anything that is owed consideration.


>> He can't understand that
>> it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
>> utility, nobody cares.
>
> That's another lie.

No, it's not a lie. It *doesn't* matter if livestock exist, apart from
their utility to humans; and you *don't* understand that it doesn't matter.


>
>> You're right, by imparting this false importance to
>> their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position.
>
> That's another lie

It's not a lie.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:21:57 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:35:40 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Runny Hamilton, stupid ****stain, bullshitted:
>>>>
>>>>>> A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign
>>>>>> toconvince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>>>>>> products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock
>>>>>> animals.
>>>>>> Bythat definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted
>>>>>> text -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU are worse than Goo!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
>>>>> for "livestock".
>>>>
>>>> It may not be the reason, but it would be the inevitable result.
>>>>
>>>>> I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
>>>>> planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
>>>>> animals.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, yer a Goo. Welcome to the club, Goos come in all ages and sizes, from
>>>> ARAs to staunch anti-ARAs, all have one thing in common, we
>>>
>>> You are a goo because you like to lick the Goober's ass, and
>>> everybody is aware of that. Calling anyone a goo who does not
>>> lick the Goober's ass is the lowest form of insult. Try to get that
>>> straight! You and your brother Derek are gooboys and that
>>> makes you proud, because you are amusingly proud of and
>>> admire the Goober. Since most people are more sickened by
>>> him than anything else, you are insulting them terribly to lump
>>> them into the same toilet as you gooboys are happy to be in.
>>>
>>>> realize that
>>>> there is no moral significance in the idea that livestock would not get to
>>>> be born and experience the wonder of life if we stopped using animal
>>>> products.
>>>
>>> That has nothing at all to do with it, and I don't believe
>>> even you are too stupid to understand that fact.
>>
>> That is it
>
> At this point in time, you and your brother Derek

Derek and Dutch are not brothers.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:25:16 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:04:00 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, > wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant
>>>>>> used
>>>>>> to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>>>>>> succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to
>>>> sayunless he says otherwise.
>>>
>>> No we don't, especially since it doesn't even apply to
>>
>> Yes, you do.
>
> We can't.

You can't, because of your mental limitations. Others can.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:01:10 GMT, Rudy > wrote:
>
>>
>> Be all that as it may, ****wit, it has no bearing on
>> the fact that animals do not "benefit" by coming into
>> existence.
>
> So you claim, but as yet you still can't explain why

I've explained it.


>> Your absurd demand for "consideration" to
>> be given to their lives has been revealed for what it
>> is: an insistence that livestock animals "ought" to
>> exist
>
> Which particular "livestock animals" do you think you're
> trying to talk about there

The non-existent "future farm animals" that "aras" want to remain
non-existent, Goo. The ones you insist deserve "consideration", i.e.,
the ones you say everyone should want to exist.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:47:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza pointed out:
>
>>>> animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>>
>>> So you claim, but as yet you still can't explain why
>>> you think so.
>>
>> I have shown that it is so, ****wit. Stop lying.
>
> Yet you can't do it now,

I've done it many times, Goo. A benefit is something that improves an
entity's welfare, and coming into existence does not improve the welfare
of the entity that comes into existence.

It's very basic stuff, Goo.


>> YOU want non-existent livestock to come into
>> existence, and you pretend it's for their benefit, when
>> it clearly is only for yours.
>
> I can consider both

You do not "consider" either the lives *or* the welfare of livestock
animals, Goo - all you consider is the products. This is amply
demonstrated by your quotes.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:01:01 GMT, Rudy > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>> lied:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:47:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>>>>> So you claim, Goober, but as yet you still can't explain why
>>>>> you think so.
>>>> I have shown that it is so, ****wit. Stop lying.
>>>
>>> Yet you can't do it now
>>
>> No, I *won't* do it now, ****wit; but I can. You're
>> just trying to waste my time, ****wit, and as we long
>> ago established, you do not waste my time - I waste yours.
>>
>>
>>>> YOU want non-existent livestock to come into
>>>> existence, and you pretend it's for their benefit, when
>>>> it clearly is only for yours.
>>>
>>> I can consider both
>>
>> No, you don't. Stop lying, ****wit. You only consider
>> your benefit. Because you're ashamed of it, you go
>> through a silly charade of pretending you consider the
>> benefit of the animals from existing, but there is no
>> such benefit.
>
> The fact that you can't explain why

I've explained exactly why, Goo. You're lying, Goo.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:17:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Rupert wrote:
>
>>> On Jun 7, 1:53 am, Jay Santos wrote:
>
>>>> Then, you know why the moral belief is false, too.
>
>>> Here we go again. Just because vegans also financially support
>>> processes which harm animals
>>
>> No, cocksucker - not "[merely] financially support",
>> you shitbag. They *participate* in those processes,
>
>[snip insane Goo spew]

Coming into existence is not a benefit for animals, Goo. I've shown why
it isn't.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:33:37 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>>>>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>>>>>> much consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>>>>> lives".
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
>>>>> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
>>>>> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
>>>> lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.
>>>
>>> So you selfishly continue to insist, without being able to explain
>>> why.
>>
>> Why do you keep calling it selfish when you are unable to explain why it's
>> selfish?
>
> I do explain why it's selfish

You don't. You can't.


>>> Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
>>> the animals gain?
>>
>> Give me one reason to to consider what the animals gain.
>
> Because it's a necessary step in considering whether or not it's
> cruel to them to be raised for food.

No.

The animals "gain" nothing from any "deal", ****wit. There is no
"deal". Coming into existence is not a "deal" they enter into, Goo, and
existence is *not* a benefit to them.


>
>> Describe one benefit that would accrue to one animal if I began
>> doing that right now.
>
> Nothing you think about can benefit any animal.

You can't describe any benefit that animals get from this sham
"consideration" you blabber about.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy > wrote:
>
>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>
> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to

The non-existent farm animals you want to exist in the future, Goo.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>
>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>> "ought to occur"?
>>
>>
>> If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
>> livestock?
>
> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.

It's not intended to help any animals, Goo. It's intended to prevent
what the "aras" feel is cruelty to animals.

There's nothing selfish about it, Goo.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> you think "they", meaning non-existent imaginary
>> livestock, could somehow "benefit" by coming into
>> existence.
>
> Your obsession with "non-existent imaginary
> livestock"

No - *your* obsession with "them", Goo.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:38:38 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead
>> chicken, lied:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> you think "they", meaning non-existent imaginary
>>>> livestock, could somehow "benefit" by coming into
>>>> existence.
>>>
>>> Your obsession with "non-existent imaginary
>>> livestock"
>>
>> No - YOUR obsession with them, ****wit. You, ****wit, are the one who
>> "thinks" they are being "denied life" by "aras". That's absurd,
>> ****wit, but you think it, and there is no dispute that you think it.
>> We have your own posts to see that you think it, ****wit:
>>
>> That approach is illogical, since if it
>> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
>> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
>> getting to have any life at all.
>> ****wit - 07/30/1999
>>
>> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
>> future farm animals [of] living,
>> ****wit - 01/08/2002
>>
>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>> could have?
>> ****wit - 10/12/2001
>>
>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>> ****wit - 12/09/1999
>>
>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>> are prevented.
>> ****wit - 08/01/2000
>
>
> Then just explain HOW you think your
> "non-existent imaginary livestock"

No, Goo - *your* "non-existent imaginary livestock". You, Goo, are the
one who thinks the (merely potential) "lives" of "future farm animals"
merit any consideration. But you can't say *why* any consideration is
merited.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:49 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>
>>>> Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
>>>
>>> Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
>>> I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
>>> and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
>>> would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.
>>
>> But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of animals.
>
> Yes, one which I would rather see not exist, along with dogs
> and bulls used for fighting.

That's a lie. You once wrote that the dogs "at least get to experience
life". There is no difference morally between breeding fighting cocks
and breeding fighting dogs. You justify each of them the same way.


>
>> You still advocate the elimination of battery hens for precisely the same
>> reason that ARAs advocate the elimination of other forms of livestock,
>> because they believe that the conditions are overly-restrictive and the
>> suffering, in their opinion, is excessive.
>
> You agree with them completely.

I don't agree with "aras". You know it.


>>>> This is the same question you are posing to
>>>> vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.
>>>
>>> They aren't helping any animals at all, which is the point.
>>
>> THEY are employing exactly the same kind of thinking as you, except that
>> they draw the line in a different place.
>
> You draw it at the same place they do

No. You know you're lying.


>> The fact that they are not
>> recommending replacing the livestock they want to see eliminated with other
>> forms of livestock is completely irrelevant.
>
> No it's not

It is completely irrelevant.


>> There is no moral imperative
>> for anyone to cause livestock to exist. Your accusation that they are
>> somehow doing something inconsiderate or fundamentally different than you do
>> when you advocate the elimination of battery hens is absurd.
>
> That's a lie.

It's not a lie. But you don't *really* advocate the elimination of
battery hens, because you buy battery-hen eggs, which "provides life"
for them.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:29:57 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:49 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
>>>>> I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
>>>>> and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
>>>>> would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.
>>>>
>>>> But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of
>>>> animals.
>>>
>>> Yes, one which I would rather see not exist, along with dogs
>>> and bulls used for fighting.
>>
>> Fine, I agree. Animals that are going to be subjected to inhumane treatment
>> should never be brought into existence. That is the same way vegans think,
>> except they think that all commercial farming is inhumane. I don't happen to
>> agree with them, neither do you. Where you and I disagree is that you argue
>> that vegans can be criticized for "denying life" to animals,
>
> No I don't.

Yes, you do:

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

You are *criticizing* "vegans" for "denying life" to "future farm
animals", Goo. Stop lying about it.

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

On 5/30/2007 12:24 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>
>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> the animals themselves should also always be given
> much consideration.

Why? What happens if no consideration is given?

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

On 6/19/2007 9:42 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, lying cracker idiot
- lied:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, lying cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>
>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to,
>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>> "ought to occur"?
>>
>>
>> If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
>> livestock?
>
> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.

*WHICH* animals, Goo? Which animals wouldn't be helped, and which would
be eliminated? Goo?



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
 

In article >,
"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote:

> On 5/30/2007 12:24 PM, dh@. wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
> >
> > And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> > the animals themselves should also always be given
> > much consideration.
>
> That doesn't mean anything. All you mean is that you want the animals
> to exist.

Who left the asylum open?
The endocrine system changes the texture of the flesh from terrified and
brutalized animals, and CAFOs are bad for man and beast. E. coli
serotype O157:H7 is attributed to CAFOs. as well as MRSAs
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15kristof.html>
Cattle aren't designed to eat grains, they are supposed to eat grass.
More than 6 months in a CAFO and cattle would die from ulcers. So what
we end up with is the flesh of a terrified, sick animal, who has been
used to breed antibiotic resistant bacteria, on our plate. I would think
anyone could see that this is not a good idea.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene

Bodybuilding food
All abot something what interesting for you

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> Video (8.38 minutes)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img

Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.

Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.

"Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.

No rational philosophy can come from a basis of such unmitigated bullshit.

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On Apr 24, 7:52*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>
> > ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> > Video (8.38 minutes)
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>
> Regan says, *"They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
> of it, and also what happens to them." *Bullshit. *Animals are *not*
> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>

The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case." Animals are
aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
"The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
Animals are aware of what happens to them, and at least some of them
have some concept of the future.

> Regan: *"And what happens to them matters to them." *Wrong.
>

Actually, it is very obviously true.

> "Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
> Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.
>

It's not bullshit.

> No rational philosophy can come from a basis of such unmitigated bullshit..

ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
 

On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George > wrote:
>> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>>
>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>> Video (8.38 minutes)
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>>
>> Regan says, "They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
>> of it, and also what happens to them." Bullshit. Animals are *not*
>> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
>> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>>
>
> The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
> Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."

Sophistry.



> Animals are
> aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
> of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
> a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
> "The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
> aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.

Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. No animal
contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
reality.



>> Regan: "And what happens to them matters to them." Wrong.
>>
>
> Actually, it is very obviously true.

No, it is very obviously false. *Nothing* matters to them. "Matters to
them" is completely alien to animal mentation.


>
>> "Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
>> Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.
>>
>
> It's not bullshit.

It's unadulterated bullshit.