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
  #1096 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:18 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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

  #1097 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:19 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1098 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:22 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1099 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:24 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .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
  #1100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:27 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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


  #1101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:28 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:29 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:31 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:33 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:34 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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


  #1106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:35 AM posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:37 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:37 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:38 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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
  #1110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:39 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default 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


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
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 05:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_4_] Vegan 448 23-03-2008 07:06 AM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017