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

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. ·

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

you two get a room.



<dh@.> 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. ·

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.

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.

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.

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****er@elvispresleywith 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.
>