On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:46:39 GMT, BlowJob > wrote:

>****wit wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:53:56 GMT, JoeBob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> · Some animals benefit from farming and some don't.
>>>
>>>No animals benefit from farming, ****wit.
>>
>>
>> We know that's what you "ARAs" want everyone to believe
>> Gonad, but some animals benefit from farming none the less.
>
>No animals benefit from farming, ****wit. It's
>logically absurd.
>
>You don't mean that "some do and some don't", ****wit,
>because you consider life per se to be a "benefit", and
>there's no room for "some" in that.

Some do and some don't Gonad, and you "ARAs" are
too stupid to understand that.

>You're an absurd "ara" at heart,

You can't explain how, because what I suggest is the
opposite of what you "ARAs" promote. You would hate
to see the general public appreciate how some animals
benefit from farming, and you would REALLY HATE
to see them try to contribute to decent lives for farm
animals, because that would go very strongly against
your hopes of eliminating domestic animals for supposedly
ethical reasons.

>****wit, and you are
>too stupid to realize it.

wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:46:39 GMT, JoeBob wrote:
>
>
>>****wit wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>No animals benefit from farming, ****wit.
>>>
>>>
>>> We know that's what you "ARAs" want everyone to believe
>>>Gonad, but some animals benefit from farming none the less.
>>
>>No animals benefit from farming, ****wit. It's
>>logically absurd.
>>
>>You don't mean that "some do and some don't", ****wit,
>>because you consider life per se to be a "benefit", and
>>there's no room for "some" in that.
>
>
> Some do and some don't Gonad

No animals "benefit" from being raised for human
consumption, ****wit.

>
>
>>You're an absurd "ara" at heart,
>
>
> You can't explain how,

I can, and I have. You feel guilty over your use of
animals, just as "aras" did before they embraced animal
"rights". You feel animals ought to "get to experience
life".

>
>
>>****wit, and you are
>>too stupid to realize it.
>
>

>
> Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
> of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
> but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
> me feel like I am stupid.

Reminds me of about the dumbest and most trivial excuse I ever heard for a
carnivorous diet. This was that if we all went Vegan there'd be no nice farm
animals in the fields for us to see as we drive past!

This alleged person also said that it'd be a shame if they went extinct - in
spite of the fact that they're nowhere near their natural ancestors which
have already gone extinct, having been bread for centuries into most
unnatural monstrosities to get more meat off them or more milk out of them.

This person also went on to say that it'd be a shame if we all went Vegan
because all the farm animals would have to be killed! "Well what the f**king
hell do you think happens to them now?" I replied.

Distinct deficiency in the brain cell department on their part, I think.

Nemo.
(No-one's found me yet.)

nemo wrote:

>> Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
>>of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
>>but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
>>me feel like I am stupid.
>
>
> Reminds me of about the dumbest and most trivial excuse I ever heard for a
> carnivorous diet. This was that if we all went Vegan there'd be no nice farm
> animals in the fields for us to see as we drive past!

That is basically David's (****wit's) argument. He
tries to couch it in this "decent lives" clothing, but
****wit *has* no clothes; we can see what he's really
saying, which is, he wants animals to live
*irrespective* of the quality of their lives.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:29:16 GMT, BlowJob wrote:

> You feel animals ought to "get to experience
>life".

Uh, Gonad, you stupid moron, there's no "ought to"
about it. Animals DO "get to experience life". Every single
one of them.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:30:54 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:

>
>>
>> Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
>> of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
>> but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
>> me feel like I am stupid.
>
>Reminds me of about the dumbest and most trivial excuse I ever heard for a
>carnivorous diet. This was that if we all went Vegan there'd be no nice farm
>animals in the fields for us to see as we drive past!
>
>This alleged person also said that it'd be a shame if they went extinct - in
>spite of the fact that they're nowhere near their natural ancestors which
>have already gone extinct, having been bread for centuries into most
>unnatural monstrosities to get more meat off them or more milk out of them.
>
>This person also went on to say that it'd be a shame if we all went Vegan
>because all the farm animals would have to be killed! "Well what the f**king
>hell do you think happens to them now?" I replied.

Some of them have decent lives and some don't. As yet, no one has
pointed out how veg*nism would help any animals. People who want to
contribute to decent lives for farm animals with their diet should NOT
become veg*ns, and you veg*ns would point that out to people who are
considering veg*nism IF you really cared about animals. But you don't.
Instead, you encourage people not to think about facts like this because
you care about promoting veg*nism, but not about human influence on
animals.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:20:57 -0400, LordSnooty > wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:56:41 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>brad beattie wrote:
>>>>> ----- Message Text -----
>>>>> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
>>>>> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
>>>>> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You
>>>>> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
>>>>> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
>>>>> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
>>>>production and distribution caused the death.
>>>
>>>This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
>>>friends like Clutch Wetter.
>>[...]
>>
>>Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
>>
>>6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
>> else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
>> things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
>
>Fallacy.

No, it's true.

>All things meat eaters do, therefore by it's very nature a
>vegan diet means the meat animals are taken out of the picture. Your
>maths are very bad.
>
>>7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
>> veggies.
>
>Fallacy.

No, that's true too.

>>8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
>> veggies.
>
>Fallacy.

No, that one's true also. If you really cared about human influence
on animals, things like this would be important to you. Your denial of
the truth about such things shows that you don't care about animals,
but only about promoting veg*nism. It's no wonder other people
become disgusted with veg*ns....the wonder is that veg*ns don't
have the sense to become disgusted with themselves.

> wrote

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:29:16 GMT, BlowJob wrote:
>
> > You feel animals ought to "get to experience
> >life".
>
> Uh, Gonad, you stupid moron, there's no "ought to"
> about it. Animals DO "get to experience life". Every single
> one of them.

That doesn't make you a better person. Ethics are things that make us better
or worse as human beings.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:25:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:29:16 GMT, BlowJob wrote:
>>
>> > You feel animals ought to "get to experience
>> >life".
>>
>> Uh, Gonad, you stupid moron, there's no "ought to"
>> about it. Animals DO "get to experience life". Every single
>> one of them.
>
>That doesn't make you a better person. Ethics are things that make us better
>or worse as human beings.

What makes you a better human being for dishonestly denying that any
animals benefit from farming?

wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:30:54 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:
>
>
>>> Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
>>>of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
>>>but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
>>>me feel like I am stupid.
>>
>>Reminds me of about the dumbest and most trivial excuse I ever heard for a
>>carnivorous diet. This was that if we all went Vegan there'd be no nice farm
>>animals in the fields for us to see as we drive past!
>>
>>This alleged person also said that it'd be a shame if they went extinct - in
>>spite of the fact that they're nowhere near their natural ancestors which
>>have already gone extinct, having been bread for centuries into most
>>unnatural monstrosities to get more meat off them or more milk out of them.
>>
>>This person also went on to say that it'd be a shame if we all went Vegan
>>because all the farm animals would have to be killed! "Well what the f**king
>>hell do you think happens to them now?" I replied.
>
>
> Some of them have decent lives and some don't.

Irrelevant. You are trying to mix up "decent lives"
with "getting to experience life", and no one is
fooled, ****wit.

> wrote
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:25:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >
> >> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:29:16 GMT, BlowJob wrote:
> >>
> >> > You feel animals ought to "get to experience
> >> >life".
> >>
> >> Uh, Gonad, you stupid moron, there's no "ought to"
> >> about it. Animals DO "get to experience life". Every single
> >> one of them.
> >
> >That doesn't make you a better person. Ethics are things that make us
better
> >or worse as human beings.
>
> What makes you a better human being for dishonestly denying that any
> animals benefit from farming?

When did I do that? I already conceded to you a few days ago that some
animals "benefit from life" if by that you mean they experience decent
lives. You agreed that the point was settled. Why do you keep raising it
again?

Now address the point I just raised. The fact that life is experienced does
not make one a more ethical person. A murderer or child molestor can have a
dog or raise some pigs, that does not change his ethical quotient AT ALL. It
has ZERO importance to his ethics that his pets or his livestock simply
EXIST. However if he treats them with great kindness, that DOES mitigate his
ethical quotient somewhat, it shows he has a gentle side to him, in spite of
the great evil he committed.

Dutch wrote:

> > wrote
>
>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:25:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:29:16 GMT, BlowJob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You feel animals ought to "get to experience
>>>>>life".
>>>>
>>>> Uh, Gonad, you stupid moron, there's no "ought to"
>>>>about it. Animals DO "get to experience life". Every single
>>>>one of them.
>>>
>>>That doesn't make you a better person. Ethics are things that make us
>
> better
>
>>>or worse as human beings.
>>
>> What makes you a better human being for dishonestly denying that any
>>animals benefit from farming?
>
>
> When did I do that? I already conceded to you a few days ago that some
> animals "benefit from life" if by that you mean they experience decent
> lives. You agreed that the point was settled. Why do you keep raising it
> again?

You can't make that kind of concession with a habitual
usenet liar like ****wit, and not expect him to twist
it into something you never meant.

>
> Now address the point I just raised. The fact that life is experienced does
> not make one a more ethical person.

****wit believes it does, but he can't say why.

> A murderer or child molestor can have a
> dog or raise some pigs, that does not change his ethical quotient AT ALL. It
> has ZERO importance to his ethics that his pets or his livestock simply
> EXIST. However if he treats them with great kindness, that DOES mitigate his
> ethical quotient somewhat, it shows he has a gentle side to him, in spite of
> the great evil he committed.
>
>

****wit > wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:46:39 GMT, JoeBob wrote:
>
>
>>****wit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:53:56 GMT, JoeBob wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> · Some animals benefit from farming and some don't.
>>>>
>>>>No animals benefit from farming, ****wit.
>>>
>>>
>>> We know that's what you "ARAs" want everyone to believe
>>>Gonad, but some animals benefit from farming none the less.
>>
>>No animals benefit from farming, ****wit. It's
>>logically absurd.
>>
>>You don't mean that "some do and some don't", ****wit,
>>because you consider life per se to be a "benefit", and
>>there's no room for "some" in that.
>
>
> Some do and some don't Gonad,

You didn't address my point, ****wit. Why not?

You do not mean that some animals don't "benefit from
farming", ****wit, you sleazy dicksucking liar, because
you consider that life itself is a "benefit" to any
animal that "gets to experience life". There is no
room for any "some" in your stupid, ****witted
statement, ****wit.

>
>>You're an absurd "ara" at heart,
>
>
> You can't explain how,

It has been explained hundreds of times, ****wit, and
you never had a refutation.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > > wrote
> >
> >>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:25:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> > wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:29:16 GMT, BlowJob wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>You feel animals ought to "get to experience
> >>>>>life".
> >>>>
> >>>> Uh, Gonad, you stupid moron, there's no "ought to"
> >>>>about it. Animals DO "get to experience life". Every single
> >>>>one of them.
> >>>
> >>>That doesn't make you a better person. Ethics are things that make us
> >
> > better
> >
> >>>or worse as human beings.
> >>
> >> What makes you a better human being for dishonestly denying that any
> >>animals benefit from farming?
> >
> >
> > When did I do that? I already conceded to you a few days ago that some
> > animals "benefit from life" if by that you mean they experience decent
> > lives. You agreed that the point was settled. Why do you keep raising it
> > again?
>
> You can't make that kind of concession with a habitual
> usenet liar like ****wit, and not expect him to twist
> it into something you never meant.

I figure it can be classified as a semantic point. As it turns out, he
simply ignored the concession and continues to say that I am claiming that
no animals experience decent lives.

> > Now address the point I just raised. The fact that life is experienced
does
> > not make one a more ethical person.
>
> ****wit believes it does, but he can't say why.

He thinks that if killing them makes him a bad person then encouraging their
lives must make him a good person.

[..]

wrote:
> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
> Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
> meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that. The following are
> lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want
> to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so.
>
> Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
> 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> killed so we can eat them.
Wow, like some people might have told you already, that really makes no
sense. Life? They could have been alive even if noone was to torture
them (was that really a surprise?).

If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>


> 3. Veg*nism does nothing to provide decent lives for farm animals.
Well the point is, they wouldn't need to be farmed in the first place if
noones eating them

> 4. Veg*nism does nothing to help or provide more life for any animals.
Well, for starters, by *not* eating them, they are more free to live
their own live, whether that be to frolick in the meadows, forests or
natural habitats, or to just have the right to do what they want,
without being captive, tortured, and eventually, eaten.


> 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
> else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
> things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
Huh? Wood is an animal by product ? Wow, that's something that's never
taught in science! Or in fact, anywhere! Have you had your head checked
recently?

> 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
> veggies.
Ok, what died for a veggie? This makes no sense, unless you are
employing very strange and dangerous farming methods.

> 8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
> veggies.

Ah, lets give up on this guy. He doesn't seem to get the difference
between meat and vegetables, maybe in his world some mutant vege will
eat him up. :S

SykonC wrote:
> > 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> > killed so we can eat them.
> Wow, like some people might have told you already, that really makes no
> sense. Life? They could have been alive even if noone was to torture
> them (was that really a surprise?).
> If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
> kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
> maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.


Glancing thru this and started thinking, always dangerous.

Should we apply the same standards to people? Look at all of the people
being kept alive just to provide votes for politicians, at public
expense.
Maybe we should just eliminate various "welfare" projects and allow
people to live free of restrictions. Can you imagine living in a
housing project? Or, the destruction of the human spirit that comes from
begging the government for assistance?

Of course, there are some that are so crippled by long-term assistance
that they are unable to survive on their own, so the compassionate thing
to do would be to allow them the dignity of a peaceful termination of
life.

Maybe extend that privilege to those that commit crimes also, can you
imagine the torture of living with the knowledge that you intentionally
killed someone, or raped a child. Again the gift of a quick termination
of existence would be the merciful thing to do.

I am sure that others could extend this list.

"Bob Yates" > wrote in message
...
> SykonC wrote:
> > > 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> > > killed so we can eat them.
> > Wow, like some people might have told you already, that really makes no
> > sense. Life? They could have been alive even if noone was to torture
> > them (was that really a surprise?).
> > If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
> > kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
> > maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>
>
> Glancing thru this and started thinking, always dangerous.
>
> Should we apply the same standards to people? Look at all of the people
> being kept alive just to provide votes for politicians, at public
> expense.
> Maybe we should just eliminate various "welfare" projects and allow
> people to live free of restrictions. Can you imagine living in a
> housing project? Or, the destruction of the human spirit that comes from
> begging the government for assistance?
>
> Of course, there are some that are so crippled by long-term assistance
> that they are unable to survive on their own, so the compassionate thing
> to do would be to allow them the dignity of a peaceful termination of
> life.
>
> Maybe extend that privilege to those that commit crimes also, can you
> imagine the torture of living with the knowledge that you intentionally
> killed someone, or raped a child. Again the gift of a quick termination
> of existence would be the merciful thing to do.
>
> I am sure that others could extend this list.

I do hope you're speaking in hyperbole.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
> I do hope you're speaking in hyperbole.
>
> -Rubystars

Lack of sleep, too much logic, following argument to logical conclusion?

wrote:

> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.

There is only one "fact" ****wit Harrison (dh_ld) wants
people to "consider", and it is so meaningless it
barely deserves to be called a "fact".

****wit - née David Harrison - irrationally believes
that farm animals' "getting to experience life" is
morally important and good, and that THEREFORE,
"vegans" who believe we ought not eat meat, and who
therefore want farm animals to become extinct, are
doing great evil.

****wit's unimportant little "fact" is that the
"billions of farm animals" only "get to experience
life" because they are purpose-bred. No one else,
anywhere, sees any importance in that. ****wit can't
explain why it ought to be seen as having any importance.

It doesn't.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:35:49 +1300, SykonC > wrote:

wrote:
>> It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
>> superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts.
>> Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than
>> meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that. The following are
>> lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want
>> to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so.
>>
>> Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>> 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
>> killed so we can eat them.
>Wow, like some people might have told you already, that really makes no
>sense. Life? They could have been alive even if noone was to torture
>them (was that really a surprise?).
>
>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.

Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely habitable
conditions?

>
>
>> 3. Veg*nism does nothing to provide decent lives for farm animals.
>Well the point is, they wouldn't need to be farmed in the first place if
>noones eating them
>
>> 4. Veg*nism does nothing to help or provide more life for any animals.
>Well, for starters, by *not* eating them, they are more free to live
>their own live, whether that be to frolick in the meadows, forests or
>natural habitats, or to just have the right to do what they want,
>without being captive, tortured, and eventually, eaten.

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, like those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begin their particular lives. Those particular animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on that
industry, and will only experience life if humans continue to
consume them. ·

>> 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
>> else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
>> things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
>Huh? Wood is an animal by product ?

What makes you huh about an idea like that? I didn't suggest it is btw.

>Wow, that's something that's never
>taught in science! Or in fact, anywhere!

Do you think anywhere might teach students that some plants are
nourished by animal bypoducts?

>Have you had your head checked
>recently?
>
>> 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
>> veggies.
>Ok, what died for a veggie?

Animals that lived in the field.

>This makes no sense, unless you are
>employing very strange and dangerous farming methods.

Like plowing....

>> 8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
>> veggies.
>
>Ah, lets give up on this guy. He doesn't seem to get the difference
>between meat and vegetables, maybe in his world some mutant vege will
>eat him up. :S

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:

>>
>>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
> What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
> habitable conditions?
>

Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.

Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.

--
me.kirchhoff

"me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
newsan.2003.11.27.00.09.59.185209.337@0ubliette. org...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>
> >>
> >>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
> >>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
> >>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
> >
> > Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
> > What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
> > habitable conditions?
> >
>
> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>
> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
====================
Now you're just lying... There are many deliberate deaths of animals just
to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies.


>
> See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.
========================
Apparently you don't see anything real. Just the typical vegan delusions.


>
> --
> me.kirchhoff

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:26:00 -0500, rick etter wrote:


> "me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
> newsan.2003.11.27.00.09.59.185209.337@0ubliette. org...
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>> >>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>> >>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>> >
>> > Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
>> > What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
>> > habitable conditions?
>> >
>> >
>> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>>
>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
> ====================
> Now you're just lying... There are many deliberate deaths of animals
> just to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies.

I see that you *don't* get it.

>> See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.
> ========================
> Apparently you don't see anything real. Just the typical vegan
> delusions.

Again, your diet is *based* *based* *based* (just to be absolutely clear)
on the murder of animals. Veganism is *based* *based* *based* on the idea
that we should not kill and eat the flesh of animals because of
convenience, tradition, or historical precedence.

Accusing me of "vegan delusions" just gives evidence that you rely mostly
on ad hominem attacks (a serious fallacy of logical debate) rather than
attempt to comprehend the basic ethical difference at play.

--
me.kirchhoff

"me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
newsan.2003.11.27.00.50.35.505760.337@0ubliette. org...
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:26:00 -0500, rick etter wrote:
>
>
> > "me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
> > newsan.2003.11.27.00.09.59.185209.337@0ubliette. org...
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
> >> >>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
> >> >>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
> >> > What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
> >> > habitable conditions?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
> >>
> >> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
> >> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
> > ====================
> > Now you're just lying... There are many deliberate deaths of animals
> > just to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies.
>
> I see that you *don't* get it.
==================
No, you don't. You completely ignore your bloody footprints to rant about
what your think others are doing.
I also notice that you did not, and cannot refute what i just said, killer.

>
> >> See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.
> > ========================
> > Apparently you don't see anything real. Just the typical vegan
> > delusions.
>
> Again, your diet is *based* *based* *based* (just to be absolutely clear)
> on the murder of animals. Veganism is *based* *based* *based* on the idea
> that we should not kill and eat the flesh of animals because of
> convenience, tradition, or historical precedence.
========================
Again, that's the 'claim'. That's not the result. The result is that you
kill animals. Possibly even more animals
than if your replaced some of your veggies with some meat. that you have
only the simple rule for simple minds
does not categorically equate to less harm.


>
> Accusing me of "vegan delusions" just gives evidence that you rely mostly
> on ad hominem attacks (a serious fallacy of logical debate) rather than
> attempt to comprehend the basic ethical difference at play.
=====================
No, the 'ethics' involved is delusional. It's based on what you think you
diet is doing, not what you've ever
checked if for. Claiming to be 'ethical' by not eating animals, and then
killing even more animals does not
mean that you are ethical.

>
> --
> me.kirchhoff

I am starting to wonder if people in this group might me too hard on
vegans such as me.kirchhoff and others.

After all, just imagine them walking around wearing a veil so that they
don't accidentally inhale an insect, sweeping the path before their self
with an artificial feather wand so as not to step on an insect. Eating
only foods grown in an artificial environment so as not to disturb any
living being that might be in the soil. Them selves living in an
environment sealed off form any possible harmful contact with another
living being.

me.kirchhoff wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:26:00 -0500, rick etter wrote:
>
>
>
>>"me.kirchhoff" > wrote in message
>>newsan.2003.11.27.00.09.59.185209.337@0ubliett e.org...
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>>>>>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>>>>>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
>>>>What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
>>>>habitable conditions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>>>
>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>>
>>====================
>>Now you're just lying... There are many deliberate deaths of animals
>>just to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies.
>
>
> I see that you *don't* get it.
>
>
>>>See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.
>>
>>========================
>>Apparently you don't see anything real. Just the typical vegan
>>delusions.
>
>
> Again, your diet is *based* *based* *based* (just to be absolutely clear)
> on the murder of animals. Veganism is *based* *based* *based* on the idea
> that we should not kill and eat the flesh of animals because of
> convenience, tradition, or historical precedence.

No, that's a lie lie lie lie lie lie (just to be
absolutely clear).

"veganism" ABSOLUTELY is not based on the idea that we
shouldn't kill animals; it is based on the stupid,
simplistic, inadequate rule that people shouldn't EAT
animal parts, not that animals shouldn't be killed.
How else do you explain, moron, that animals are
slaughtered WHOLESALE in the course of producing,
storing and distributing fruits and vegetables?

"veganism" is just a simple, stupid, inadquate rule -
"don't eat animal parts" - nothing more.

me.kirchhoff wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>
>
>>>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>>>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>>>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>>
>> Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
>>What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
>>habitable conditions?
>>
>
>
> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>
> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

No, they do not. They advocate one thing, and only one
thing: do not eat animal parts. That rule, of course,
is not based in ethical principle AT ALL. It's a
stupid, inadequate rule; nothing more.

>
> See the difference? It's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.

What seems to be entirely beyond your grasp is the idea
of ethical principle, as opposed to ****witted
obedience to a stupid, inadequate, PRINCIPLE-FREE rule.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:28:35 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>me.kirchhoff wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:43:00 -0500, dh_ld wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If say, someone bred YOU, mr dh_ld, to be slaughtered, and meanwhile,
>>>>kept you in barely habitable conditions, amputated you, and so forth,
>>>>maybe you would withdraw your 'provides *life*' comment.
>>>
>>> Maybe. Maybe not. Would I know the situation? The animals don't.
>>>What makes you think animals raised for profit are kept in barely
>>>habitable conditions?
>>
>> Bottom line: you advocate a lifestyle *based* on the murder of animals.
>>
>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
>No, they do not.

Yes, they do. No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
You don't get to redefine veganism, Jonathan.

ipse Dreck wrote:
>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>>
>>No, they do not.
>
> Yes, they do.

No, they don't.

> No one believes all animal and human
> life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.

Go review the vegan activist websites, read their literature.

> You don't get to redefine veganism, Jonathan.

He's not redefining it, he's being honest about it -- something one
shouldn't expect a vegan activist to be.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:55:21 GMT, usual suspect s> wrote:

>"ipse dixit" wrote:
>>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>>>
>>>No, they do not.
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>
>No, they don't.
>
Now would be a good time to substantiate your
claim with some evidence instead of the usual
hot air and bluster.

>> No one believes all animal and human
>> life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>
>Go review the vegan activist websites, read their literature.
>
I have, and it doesn't substantiate the claim being
made in that everyone believes all animal and
human life can expect 100% protection in industry
and agriculture.

>> You don't get to redefine veganism, Jonathan.
>
>He's not redefining it

He's trying to, but failing miserably.

ipse dixit wrote:

<snip>

>>>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
(ethical)vegan does so.

Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.

However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
what ipse says they do.

<snip>
>>>No one believes all animal and human
>>>life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.

This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.

<snip>

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> ipse dixit wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
>
> There is absolutely no question that this is true

There is ZERO support for the claim that it is true.

> -- every single (ethical)vegan does so.

NO "vegan" does so. "veganism" is one thing, and one
thing only: do not consume animal parts. It's a
silly, misguided rule, with no ethical principle behind it.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
>
>ipse dixit wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
>There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
>(ethical)vegan does so.
>
>Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
>achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
>is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.
>
>However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
>what ipse says they do.
>
><snip>
>>>>No one believes all animal and human
>>>>life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>
>This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
>pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
>human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.
>
Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet
no one in their right mind would conclude that coal
buyers are showing a contempt for the rights of
those suffering and dying from it.

ipse dixit wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:

>>ipse dixit wrote:

>><snip>

>>>>>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

>>There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
>>(ethical)vegan does so.

>>Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
>>achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
>>is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.

>>However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
>>what ipse says they do.

>><snip>

>>>>>No one believes all animal and human
>>>>>life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.

>>This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
>>pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
>>human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.

> Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet
> no one in their right mind would conclude that coal
> buyers are showing a contempt for the rights of
> those suffering and dying from it.

Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
killed in veggie production.

Rat

Bill wrote:

<snip>

> NO "vegan" does so. "veganism" is one thing, and one thing only: do
> not consume animal parts. It's a silly, misguided rule, with no ethical
> principle behind it.

You know, Jonnie, your constant mouthing of simple-minded slogans makes
you as convincing as the wild-eyed fanatic who stands on street-corners
with a sandwich sign claiming The End Is Near.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> ipse dixit wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan >
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> ipse dixit wrote:
>
>
>>> <snip>
>
>
>>>>>>>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
>
>>> There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
>>> (ethical)vegan does so.
>
>
>>> Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
>>> achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
>>> is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.
>
>
>>> However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
>>> what ipse says they do.
>
>
>>> <snip>
>
>
>>>>>> No one believes all animal and human
>>>>>> life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>
>
>>> This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
>>> pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
>>> human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.
>
>
>> Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet no one in their
>> right mind would conclude that coal buyers are showing a contempt for
>> the rights of those suffering and dying from it.
>
>
> Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
> right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
> to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
> killed in veggie production.

It's not the same argument at all. It's a totally
specious comparison, as has been explained to you
dozens of times. It is a measure of your dishonesty
that you pretend not to see the massive, indisputable
moral distinction.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:47 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:

>
>
>ipse dixit wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
>
>>>ipse dixit wrote:
>
>>><snip>
>
>>>>>>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
>>>There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
>>>(ethical)vegan does so.
>
>>>Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
>>>achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
>>>is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.
>
>>>However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
>>>what ipse says they do.
>
>>><snip>
>
>>>>>>No one believes all animal and human
>>>>>>life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>
>>>This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
>>>pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
>>>human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.
>
>> Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet
>> no one in their right mind would conclude that coal
>> buyers are showing a contempt for the rights of
>> those suffering and dying from it.
>
>Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
>right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
>to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
>killed in veggie production.
>
And don't I know it. Their entire argument against
the vegan rests on the collateral deaths caused by
farmers in agriculture, yet they fail to use the same
argument when considering human collateral deaths.
If vegans are showing a contempt for animal rights
when buying produce, then we're all showing a
contempt for human rights when buying produce.

>Rat

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:21 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>Rat & Swan wrote:
>> ipse dixit wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
>>>> ipse dixit wrote:
>>
[..]
>>>>>>> No one believes all animal and human
>>>>>>> life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>>
>>>> This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
>>>> pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
>>>> human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.
>>
>>> Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet no one in their
>>> right mind would conclude that coal buyers are showing a contempt for
>>> the rights of those suffering and dying from it.
>>
>> Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
>> right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
>> to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
>> killed in veggie production.
>
>It's not the same argument at all. It's a totally
>specious comparison, as has been explained to you
>dozens of times. It is a measure of your dishonesty
>that you pretend not to see the massive, indisputable
>moral distinction.

There is no moral distinction between animals and
humans where a basic right not to be intentionally
harmed is concerned.

ipse Dreck wrote:
>>>>>Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>>>>
>>>>No, they do not.
>>>
>>>Yes, they do.
>>
>>No, they don't.
>
> Now would be a good time to substantiate your
> claim with some evidence instead of the usual
> hot air and bluster.

I told you where you could find the information. Did you look? No.
You're a lazy asshole.

Here's one gem:
Often new vegans just replace their old animal-based foods with
cruelty-free versions and analogs.
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/dietofvegans.htm

I admit that probably sounds pretty noble on the surface to a
bluefooted, self-crippled greasemonkey with a GCE in woodwork. It
doesn't stand the test of scrutiny, though, when one considers all the
animals harmed and killed in the production, transportation, processing,
and storage of wheat and soy crops for the "cruelty-free" versions and
analogs. There's no such thing as "cruelty-free." Such substitutes for
meat are just free of *animal parts*.

A person living off analogs is responsible for "cruelty" to more
animals. Many animals die for analogs; only one dies for a steak, and
there's plenty more meat remaining for many meals beyond that. Professor
Stephen Davis' research has shown that the diet causing the least harm
to animals is one consisting of grazed (grass-fed) ruminants. Vegan
activists like Matt Ball agree with him:
...[i]t is clear that someone who hunts for their meat, or buys
exclusively grazed organic meat also causes significantly less
suffering.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/20020715.html

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

>>>No one believes all animal and human
>>>life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>>
>>Go review the vegan activist websites, read their literature.
>
> I have

....not.

> , and it doesn't substantiate the claim being
> made in that everyone believes all animal and
> human life can expect 100% protection in industry
> and agriculture.

Then why do they keep calling fake meat (analogs) made from soy and
wheat -- crops which cause many animal deaths and casualties -- "cruelty
free"? They're either willfully ignorant or willfully deceptive. Which
do you think it is?

>>>You don't get to redefine veganism, Jonathan.
>>
>>He's not redefining it

<restore>
he's being honest about it -- something one shouldn't expect a vegan
activist to be.
<end restore>

> He's trying to

No, he's doing it and succeeding.

> , but failing miserably.

Then why are you making your unethical snips to take stuff out of
context, Dreck? BTW, it's been over two weeks and you've still failed to
address the following:

I wrote:

>>> How do you propose protecting the lamb's inalienable
>>> rights from the lion's desire to eat him?
>>

[you wrote:]
>> Rights can only be held against other moral agents,
>> and you already knew that.
>

[I wrote:]
> Then the term "animal rights" is oxymoronic.

[Then you went silent, even after about five requests for a reply.]

Checkmate!

Rat & Swan wrote:
>>>>>> Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
>>>>>> include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.
>
> There is absolutely no question that this is true

There are many questions that it's true.

> -- every single (ethical)vegan does so.

No, they make unfounded claims about it.

> Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
> achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
> is something entirely different

No, not really. Most vegans, even those who self-righteously affix the
sanctimonious qualifier "ethical" to their brand of veganism, reject the
truly low-impact alternatives which are really nothing but matters of
self-sufficiency (gardening, etc.). The fact that they purchase analogs
and other products show they (a) contribute to "cruelty" in farming and
(b) really haven't lost their taste (and preference!) for consuming
animal flesh.

> -- and, of course, highly debatable.

No, it's not debatable.

> However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
> what Dreck says they do.

Yes, there is. Vegans, particularly activists, advocate eating no meat;
they know that producing the foods they recommend -- from tofu to rice
to veggies to fruits -- still cause animal casualties and deaths, but
they say little or nothing about that. The only stuff from vegan/AR
activists that I've seen online addressing issues of animal harm from
agriculture production is like this one from Cerkowski:
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/censoredred/veg1.html

[JB: Have you seen this one?
http://wiredheart.hispeed.com/september/michael.html]

> <snip>
>
>>>> No one believes all animal and human
>>>> life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.
>
> This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
> pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
> human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.

Why do they call their fake meats and other analogs "cruelty-free"?