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  
Old 12-06-2008, 03:47 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have'"rights".

Tim Smith wrote:
In article ,


The thing that gives the most difficulty is that if you
try to pin down a good reason *why* animals should not
have rights, you either end up with reasons that apply to
sic narrowly (so that, say, babies and retarded
humans would not have rights), or you end up with
arguments that sound uncomfortably like the arguments
that were used to justify things like keeping blacks as
slaves, or committing genocide on Jews.

Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do
not 'have' "rights". ALL such "rights" are lent out
(temporarily) to those of less standing by those who assume
they have a higher standing. Between and among, differing
"races" or species.
Occasionally, one group will declare itself victorious, but
the names of the oppressors have only changed.
The rich remain, conveniently, the rich and they are still
in control; it's just the New World Order, this time.

pro-rights arguments argue for is that animals should
have the right to be free of human-inflicted suffering.

Where, indeed, do those illusory "rights" come from? An
infallible "god", or some biased, power-grubbing, little *******
who is trying to manipulate others?

That is, without predators, their herds would become
unhealthy and overpopulated, and then die.

How does this 'justify' the FORCED OVERPOPULATION of herd
animals, there is no genetic advantage to forced-conception.

So, there is no ethics problem with humans taking the

role of the
predators.

NO RATIONAL person ever said there was, it is NOT an
ethics issue, are you so dense that you do not understand
that? Don't be ashamed, just ask.
It is better to cop to our ignorance; otherwise, how will
we learn anything?

When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be
bad for that cow, but it is a good thing for Cowkind.

You can not support that statement.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-06-2008, 05:58 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have' "rights".

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:47:36 -0400, Laurie wrote:

Tim Smith wrote:
In article ,


The thing that gives the most difficulty is that if you
try to pin down a good reason *why* animals should not
have rights, you either end up with reasons that apply to
sic narrowly (so that, say, babies and retarded
humans would not have rights), or you end up with
arguments that sound uncomfortably like the arguments
that were used to justify things like keeping blacks as
slaves, or committing genocide on Jews.

Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do
not 'have' "rights". ALL such "rights" are lent out
(temporarily) to those of less standing by those who assume
they have a higher standing. Between and among, differing
"races" or species.
Occasionally, one group will declare itself victorious, but
the names of the oppressors have only changed.
The rich remain, conveniently, the rich and they are still
in control; it's just the New World Order, this time.

pro-rights arguments argue for is that animals should
have the right to be free of human-inflicted suffering.

Where, indeed, do those illusory "rights" come from? An
infallible "god", or some biased, power-grubbing, little *******
who is trying to manipulate others?


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.

That is, without predators, their herds would become
unhealthy and overpopulated, and then die.

How does this 'justify' the FORCED OVERPOPULATION of herd
animals, there is no genetic advantage to forced-conception.

So, there is no ethics problem with humans taking the

role of the
predators.

NO RATIONAL person ever said there was, it is NOT an
ethics issue, are you so dense that you do not understand
that? Don't be ashamed, just ask.
It is better to cop to our ignorance; otherwise, how will
we learn anything?

When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be
bad for that cow, but it is a good thing for Cowkind.

You can not support that statement.


Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-06-2008, 03:48 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have' "rights".

oh oh, two kooks together...

shame it's not profitable.










"Laurie" wrote in message
abs...
Tim Smith wrote:
In article ,


The thing that gives the most difficulty is that if you try to pin down a
good reason *why* animals should not have rights, you either end up with
reasons that apply to
sic narrowly (so that, say, babies and retarded humans would not have
rights), or you end up with arguments that sound uncomfortably like the
arguments that were used to justify things like keeping blacks as slaves,
or committing genocide on Jews.

Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do
not 'have' "rights". ALL such "rights" are lent out
(temporarily) to those of less standing by those who assume
they have a higher standing. Between and among, differing
"races" or species.
Occasionally, one group will declare itself victorious, but
the names of the oppressors have only changed.
The rich remain, conveniently, the rich and they are still
in control; it's just the New World Order, this time.

pro-rights arguments argue for is that animals should have the right to
be free of human-inflicted suffering.

Where, indeed, do those illusory "rights" come from? An
infallible "god", or some biased, power-grubbing, little *******
who is trying to manipulate others?

That is, without predators, their herds would become unhealthy and
overpopulated, and then die.

How does this 'justify' the FORCED OVERPOPULATION of herd
animals, there is no genetic advantage to forced-conception.

So, there is no ethics problem with humans taking the

role of the
predators.

NO RATIONAL person ever said there was, it is NOT an
ethics issue, are you so dense that you do not understand
that? Don't be ashamed, just ask.
It is better to cop to our ignorance; otherwise, how will
we learn anything?

When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be
bad for that cow, but it is a good thing for Cowkind.

You can not support that statement.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science



  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-06-2008, 03:49 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have' "rights".

you two get a room.



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:47:36 -0400, Laurie wrote:

Tim Smith wrote:
In article ,


The thing that gives the most difficulty is that if you
try to pin down a good reason *why* animals should not
have rights, you either end up with reasons that apply to
sic narrowly (so that, say, babies and retarded
humans would not have rights), or you end up with
arguments that sound uncomfortably like the arguments
that were used to justify things like keeping blacks as
slaves, or committing genocide on Jews.

Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do
not 'have' "rights". ALL such "rights" are lent out
(temporarily) to those of less standing by those who assume
they have a higher standing. Between and among, differing
"races" or species.
Occasionally, one group will declare itself victorious, but
the names of the oppressors have only changed.
The rich remain, conveniently, the rich and they are still
in control; it's just the New World Order, this time.

pro-rights arguments argue for is that animals should
have the right to be free of human-inflicted suffering.

Where, indeed, do those illusory "rights" come from? An
infallible "god", or some biased, power-grubbing, little *******
who is trying to manipulate others?


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.

That is, without predators, their herds would become
unhealthy and overpopulated, and then die.

How does this 'justify' the FORCED OVERPOPULATION of herd
animals, there is no genetic advantage to forced-conception.

So, there is no ethics problem with humans taking the

role of the
predators.

NO RATIONAL person ever said there was, it is NOT an
ethics issue, are you so dense that you do not understand
that? Don't be ashamed, just ask.
It is better to cop to our ignorance; otherwise, how will
we learn anything?

When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be
bad for that cow, but it is a good thing for Cowkind.

You can not support that statement.


Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it.



  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-06-2008, 05:38 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not'have' "rights".

luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig ****er luuk porno king luuk for all your
child molestation needs luuk! wrote:
oh oh, two kooks together...


**** off, shitbag.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-06-2008, 05:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have' "rights".

hey look, it's the uber personality of laura.



"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
m...
luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig ****er luuk porno king luuk for all your
child molestation needs luuk! wrote:
you two get a room.


Blow it out your ass, douchebag.



  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-06-2008, 05:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have' "rights".

my mistake... 3 shitbags.




"Ron Hamilton" wrote in message
m...
luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig ****er luuk porno king luuk for all your
child molestation needs luuk! wrote:
oh oh, two kooks together...


**** off, shitbag.



  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-06-2008, 06:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have' "rights".

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:54:03 GMT, "luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig ****er luuk porno king luuk for all your child molestation needs luuk!" luukandtheinflatableETApig****[email protected] onea.com
wrote:

hey look, it's the uber personality of laura.


"Laury" is really a dude named Larry. He's one of Goo's
eliminationist buddies.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
om...
luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig ****er luuk porno king luuk for all your
child molestation needs luuk! wrote:
you two get a room.


Blow it out your ass, douchebag.




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
"animal rights" activist sentenced to prison for criminal vandalism Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 04-05-2016 02:43 PM
He has no opposition to the misnomer "animal rights", and can't even pretend he does. [email protected] Vegan 0 26-05-2008 02:36 PM
Goo argues for the misnomer "animal rights" [email protected] Vegan 1 02-05-2008 04:53 AM
Animal welfare, not animal "rights" Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 10 21-02-2008 04:38 PM
What does "animal rights" have to offer? Apparently nothing. [email protected] Vegan 1 08-02-2007 05:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017