wrote:
>
(snip)

> But when I eat pork I wonder if their lives are as bad as "ARAs" want > us to believe they are.
> >
Another prime example of the inaction of animal welfarists, wondering
how bad animals might have it. Is that it? Is that how you insure your
much touted "decent lives" for farm animals?

How about supporting producers who practice good husbandry, asswipe?
You know, like you're constantly babbling about.


> >

> wrote
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:42:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:30:24 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dutch wrote:
> >> >
> >> >(snip)
> >> >
> >> >> > Why?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
> >> >> spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
> >> >
> >> >Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns?
> >>
> >> "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
> >impossible.
> >
> >AW is only relevant inasmuch as there are animals to receive it, it's not
a
> >goal onto itself.
> >
> >> Dutch disagrees with that.
> >
> >I neither agree nor disagree, it's just a stupid statement.
>
> It's just another fact you don't want people to consider because
> it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.

Get this through your head, I DO NOT support the elimination of domestic
animals. That doesn't mean I must support every bit of two-bit sophism that
comes down the pipe.

> It always
> gets back to opposition to considering what the animals get out
> of the arrangement...unless it's something terrible of course...you
> all feel we should consider the bad things and not the good.

That is false. AW is all about "considering what the animals get out of the
arrangement". It is of utmost importance in AW, ethically, that domestic
animals have decent lives and are not made to suffer undue pain and
deprivation. That's because raising them for our benefit places a moral
obligation on us.

When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that we should
be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals. You have it
backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty to do so.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:38:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:41:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[..]
> >> >> >> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use
> >it.
> >> >In your
> >> >> >> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to
> >obtain
> >> >an
> >> >> >> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain
> >not
> >> >due
> >> >> >> > to you.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
> >> >> >> animals "getting to experience life".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >None that I can see.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience life
> >> >> is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss.
> >> >
> >> >Because only once something exists does it aquire the ability to
suffer a
> >> >loss. The animal can't "gain" it's life because "it" doesn't exist
prior
> >to
> >> >being conceived.
> >> >
> >> >> And then you're
> >> >> back to (NOT!) explaining how a dead animal can experience the loss
> >> >> of its life
> >> >
> >> >Who said that?
> >> >
> >> >...uh...or is it only a live animal who can experience the loss
> >> >> of its life?
> >> >
> >> >Brilliant.
> >>
> >> It could only experience the course of action leading up to it, not
a
> >loss
> >> from loss of life since it would cease to exist when it lost its life.
> >
> >What are you getting at?
>
> It's all right there. If you want to take it from the other direction:
the
> dead body of an animal can't experience any loss, so an animal can't
> experience a loss from the loss of its life. It can only experience the
> things which lead up to the loss of its life. From your position, any
course
> of events leading up to the slaughter of an animal--regardless of whether
> or not they involve much suffering for the animal--cancel out anything
> positive about the life the animal had, regardless of the quality of that
life.

I've never said anything of the kind. The kind of moral bargaining with life
you are contemplating is foul sophism.

Dutch wrote:
>
(snip)

> It is of utmost importance in AW, ethically, that domestic
> animals have decent lives and are not made to suffer undue pain and
> deprivation.

Explain how purchasing factory-farmed pork supports "decent lives" for
swine.

And what the hell is "undue pain and deprivation"? Exactly what degree
of pain and deprivation is due them?

frlpwr wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>It is of utmost importance in AW, ethically, that domestic
>>animals have decent lives and are not made to suffer undue pain and
>>deprivation.
>
>
> Explain how purchasing factory-farmed pork supports "decent lives" for
> swine.

Shown when he ever said anything about purchasing
"factory-farmed" pork, you stupid whore.

****wit David Harrison ) wrote:

> It always
> gets back to opposition to considering what the animals get out
> of the arrangement

The only thing the animals get out of the arrangement
is death. There is no benefit from being born.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
> > > > spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
> > >
> > > Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns? > >
You
> > > now admit you eat factory-farmed pork? You have become one of those
> > > peoples who can't use "animals and ethics" in the same sentence.\
> >
> > I don't know where my bacon comes from,
>
> Well, here's our animal welfarist, folks. Like Harrison, you
> pontificate on the decent lives and deaths of farm animals while chowing
> down on factory-farmed meat.

I said that providing decent lives for domestic animals is admirable, I
never said I always achieved it.

> > any more than the typical vegan
>
> So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.

I didn't say that, I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
the source of their veggies, except they want it to be fresh and taste good,
and they think if it's "organic" it'll be better for them. Given the clear
choice, I always choose free range products at a premium.

> Why have
> you lied about yourself all this time? Disgraceful!

Show where I lied.

> > knows where his winter broccoli comes from.
>
> I know exactly where my winter broccoli comes from. It's the frozen
> surplus from my late summer harvest.

Bully for you.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
> > impossible. Dutch disagrees with that.
> >
> Please list farm animal welfare reforms initiated by the welfarist camp.

The AR camp has co-opted most of the AW issues, because AW issues are what
get the public's attention. The vast majority of the financial support for
PeTA comes from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of
animal use. They agree with PeTA that laying hens and pigs need space, and
bears should not be forced to sit in tiny cages, elephants should not be
chained and beaten, and many other valid welfare issues. ARAs cannot claim
that those are soley AR issues just because PeTA initiates them and has an
underlying AR agenda. PeTA could drop their AR stance tomorrow and it
wouldn't change their base of support significantly, in fact it might
eventually increase it significantly, since many people are turned off by
the extreme aspects of their platform.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > It is of utmost importance in AW, ethically, that domestic
> > animals have decent lives and are not made to suffer undue pain and
> > deprivation.
>
> Explain how purchasing factory-farmed pork supports "decent lives" for
> swine.

Where did I say it did?

> And what the hell is "undue pain and deprivation"?

Conditions that cause obvious distress.

Exactly what degree
> of pain and deprivation is due them?

Every life contains *some* unavoidable pain and deprivation.

Dutch wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote
>
(snip)
> >
> > Well, here's our animal welfarist, folks. Like Harrison, you
> > pontificate on the decent lives and deaths of farm animals while
> > chowing down on factory-farmed meat.
>
> I said that providing decent lives for domestic animals is admirable, > I never said I always achieved it.

So when you said elsewhere that raising animals for food obligates us to
provide decent lives for them, you meant it was someone else's
obligation to see they have decent lives, not yours.

You are morally bankrupt **** puddle and have no business trying to pass
yourself off as a welfarist, lukewarm or otherwise.

> > > any more than the typical vegan
> >
> > So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.
>
> I didn't say that,

What do you think having "no idea where your bacon comes from" makes
you?

> I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
> the source of their veggies,

Can you give an example of a vegan here who has "little concern about
the source of their veggies"?

> except they want it to be fresh and taste good, and they think if it's > "organic" it'll be better for them.

And "they" think if it's "organic" it is gentler on the environment,
including wildlife.

>Given the clear choice, I always choose free range products at a
> premium.

Do you want us to believe free range pork products are unavailable in
Canada?
>
> > Why have
> > you lied about yourself all this time? Disgraceful!
>
> Show where I lied.

You have pretended to be an animal welfarist. Welfarists don't support
factory farms or pound seizures, for that matter. Or maybe you think
they do?

Please provide a list of the animal welfare organizations that promote
factory farming.
>
> > > knows where his winter broccoli comes from.
> >
> > I know exactly where my winter broccoli comes from. It's the frozen
> > surplus from my late summer harvest.
>
> Bully for you.

Instead of growing all that pesticide-laden, Arctic-polluting,
non-conservation farmed wheat, maybe you should grow a little broccoli
next summer. That way you could know where your winter broccoli comes
from, too.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> > "frlpwr" > wrote
> >
> (snip)
> > >
> > > Well, here's our animal welfarist, folks. Like Harrison, you
> > > pontificate on the decent lives and deaths of farm animals while
> > > chowing down on factory-farmed meat.
> >
> > I said that providing decent lives for domestic animals is admirable, >
I never said I always achieved it.
>
> So when you said elsewhere that raising animals for food obligates us to
> provide decent lives for them, you meant it was someone else's
> obligation to see they have decent lives, not yours.

No, it's everyone's moral obligation. I do some things, and don't do others,
I am morally culpable, just like you.

> You are morally bankrupt **** puddle and have no business trying to pass
> yourself off as a welfarist, lukewarm or otherwise.

Ad hominem.

> > > > any more than the typical vegan
> > >
> > > So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.
> >
> > I didn't say that,
>
> What do you think having "no idea where your bacon comes from" makes
> you?

It might make me typical wrt to bacon, but bacon comprises a very small part
of my diet.

> > I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
> > the source of their veggies,
>
> Can you give an example of a vegan here who has "little concern about
> the source of their veggies"?

Vegans here, specifically, are in denial.

> > except they want it to be fresh and taste good, and they think if it's
"organic" it'll be better for them.

> And "they" think if it's "organic" it is gentler on the environment,
> including wildlife.

Partially.

> >Given the clear choice, I always choose free range products at a
> > premium.
>
> Do you want us to believe free range pork products are unavailable in
> Canada?

Canada is mighty big place, I don't know of any locally. Like everyone else,
I do some things, I don't do others.

> > > Why have
> > > you lied about yourself all this time? Disgraceful!
> >
> > Show where I lied.
>
> You have pretended to be an animal welfarist.

I am in favour of animal welfare rather than animal rights. I do some things
to support and promote it, some things I don't do.

> Welfarists don't support
> factory farms

Yes they do, animal rights activists support factory farms all the time with
their purchases.

> or pound seizures, for that matter.

Stay on the topic, baby killer.

> Or maybe you think
> they do?

Yes.

> Please provide a list of the animal welfare organizations that promote
> factory farming.

Now are we talking about individuals who "support" with their personal
choices, or organizations who "promote"?

The goalposts are a-slippin' and a-slidin' around here ..

> > > > knows where his winter broccoli comes from.
> > >
> > > I know exactly where my winter broccoli comes from. It's the frozen
> > > surplus from my late summer harvest.
> >
> > Bully for you.
>
> Instead of growing all that pesticide-laden,

Herbicide, and I use much less than most of the farmers around me, who have
mostly converted to "conservation farming". I haven't used pesticides in
years either.

> Arctic-polluting,
> non-conservation farmed wheat,

Conservation farming is more polluting than conventional farming. It saves
the soil from being blown away but it allows weeds to flourish, which means
a lot more herbicide is used. My section is half turned over and half brown
stubble right now, the conservation fields are all a deathly grey.

> maybe you should grow a little broccoli
> next summer. That way you could know where your winter broccoli comes
> from, too.

Maybe all of us can do a little more here and a little more there, without
getting on our self-righteous high-horses about it, like ARAs and vegans do.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "frlpwr" > wrote
> > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.
> > >
> > > I didn't say that,
> >
> > What do you think having "no idea where your bacon comes from" makes
> > you?
>
> It might make me typical wrt to bacon,

It makes you a fraud in all areas, Ditch.

> but bacon comprises a very small part
> of my diet.
>
Irelevant.

> > > I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
> > > the source of their veggies,
> >
> > Can you give an example of a vegan here who has "little concern about
> > the source of their veggies"?
>
> Vegans here, specifically, are in denial.
>
You've got that the wrong way round, because
while no evidence exists where vegans deny the
fact that a small number of animals die for their
food, the meatarians here certainly deny it.

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15

Dutch wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote
> > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > (snip)

> > Explain how purchasing factory-farmed pork supports "decent lives"
> > for swine.
>
> Where did I say it did?

Does it bother you at all that your actions do not coincide with your
stated belief in man's "obligation" to food animals?
>
> > And what the hell is "undue pain and deprivation"?
>
> Conditions that cause obvious distress.

You mean like the conditions in a CAFO?
>
> Exactly what degree
> > of pain and deprivation is due them?
>
> Every life contains *some* unavoidable pain and deprivation.

That's nice, but it doesn't answer my question. What has a pig done to
be "due" pain and deprivation?

The pain and deprivation inherent in a CAFO is entirely avoidable by
simply banning confinement farms.

Dutch wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
> > > impossible. Dutch disagrees with that.
> > >
> > Please list farm animal welfare reforms initiated by the welfarist > > camp.
>
> The AR camp has co-opted most of the AW issues, because AW issues are > what get the public's attention.

Please list groups you consider animal welfare reform organizations.

Dutch wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote
> > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > >
> > (snip)
> > > >

> > So when you said elsewhere that raising animals for food obligates
> > us to provide decent lives for them, you meant it was someone else's
> > obligation to see they have decent lives, not yours.
>
> No, it's everyone's moral obligation. I do some things, and don't do > others,

Knowing full well the conditions on hog confinement farms, giving up
factory-farmed pork products is more than you're willing to do?

If you can't be discriminating in your meat purchases, don't pretend to
care about the well-being of farm animals, Harrison/Dutch.

> I am morally culpable, just like you.

I don't buy industrial groceries.
>
> > You are morally bankrupt **** puddle and have no business trying to > > pass yourself off as a welfarist, lukewarm or otherwise.
>
> Ad hominem.

Damn right! You are a hypocritical, little shit who pays lipservice to
farm animal welfare while the grease from factory-farmed pork drips off
your chin.
>
How difficult is it to pass up the bacon, Dutch?

> > > > > any more than the typical vegan
> > > >
> > > > So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.
> > >
> > > I didn't say that,
> >
> > What do you think having "no idea where your bacon comes from" makes
> > you?
>
> It might make me typical wrt to bacon, but bacon comprises a very
> small part of my diet.

What about the rest of your meat and dairy selections? Do you buy
pasture-raised beef products? Free-range poultry? What do you have
against swine, who are provably the most intelligent and psychologically
delicate of farm animals?

> > > I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
> > > the source of their veggies,
> >
> > Can you give an example of a vegan here who has "little concern
> > about the source of their veggies"?
>
> Vegans here, specifically, are in denial.

What's this supposed to mean? I asked you who, specifically, has
"little concern about the source of their veggies"? I'd like a name or
two.
>
> > > except they want it to be fresh and taste good, and they think if > > > it's "organic" it'll be better for them.
>
> > And "they" think if it's "organic" it is gentler on the environment,
> > including wildlife.
>
> Partially.

You're not making sense. Vegans partially think or organic farming is
partially gentler?

> > >Given the clear choice, I always choose free range products at a
> > > premium.
> >
> > Do you want us to believe free range pork products are unavailable
> > in Canada?
>
> Canada is mighty big place, I don't know of any locally.

Don't you think that someone with an obligation to support decent lives
for farm animals should find a source for ethical pork products or
forego the pleasure of eating bacon?

(snip)
> >
> > You have pretended to be an animal welfarist.
>
> I am in favour of animal welfare

Whoopee-do! Try putting your money where your mouth is.

> rather than animal rights.

I know, I know, if we recognized animals' rights, it would be the end of
human civilization. Amen.

> I do some things
> to support and promote it, some things I don't do.

Again. What do you have against pigs?
>
> > Welfarists don't support
> > factory farms
>
> Yes they do,

I'm waiting for the list of animal welfare organizations that support
factory farms. I'll even accept a list of verifiable welfarist
individuals that do. And please don't dredge up industry organizations
or spokesmen.

> animal rights activists support factory farms all the time with
> their purchases.

How do you know what ARAs do "all the time"? I doubt you even know an
animal rights activist personally. How do you come by this inside
information.
>
> > or pound seizures, for that matter.
>
> Stay on the topic, baby killer.

It's the same topic. An alleged animal welfarist that actively supports
the most egregious violations against animals.

And if you think calling me a "baby killer" disturbs me, you couldn't be
more wrong. I am absolutely remorseless about my past abortions and I
highly recommend the procedure to every pregnant human female. I
consider it irresponsible and unethical for humans to breed. There are
too goddamn many of us and not enough remaining habitat for other
species.
>
> > Or maybe you think
> > they do?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Please provide a list of the animal welfare organizations that
> > promote factory farming.
>
> Now are we talking about individuals who "support" with their personal
> choices, or organizations who "promote"?

I'm looking for some philosophical foundation for your finacial support
of factory farming. If you want to tell me that all animal welfarists
are hypocrites, I'm more than happy to believe you.
>
(snip)
> > >
> > > Bully for you.
> >
> > Instead of growing all that pesticide-laden,
>
> Herbicide,

Herbicides are pesticides, Farmer Dunce.

> and I use much less than most of the farmers around me, who have
> mostly converted to "conservation farming".
> I haven't used pesticides in years either.

So when you said you were forced to control plant pests by the
government, you were lying?

Oh, and let me stop you now before you pretend that conservation farming
does not include crop rotation.
>
> > Arctic-polluting,
> > non-conservation farmed wheat,
>
> Conservation farming is more polluting than conventional farming.

While conservation farming might require more herbicide, this is offset
by a decrease in fertilizer compared to fields with depleted topsoil.

>It saves the soil from being blown

It's not just wind erosion that's the problem, it loss of fertility in
soils that are constantly laid bare and exposed to heat, air, saturation
and frost.

(snip)

> Maybe all of us can do a little more here and a little more there,

You mean like abstaining from factory-farmed pork? Is that "little"
enough?

> without getting on our self-righteous high-horses about it, like ARAs > and vegans do.

I don't think it is high-handed to expect someone who accepts the
obligation to insure farm animal well-being to STOP BUYING
FACTORY-FARMED PORK PRODUCTS!

"ipse dixit" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
> > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't say that,
> > >
> > > What do you think having "no idea where your bacon comes from" makes
> > > you?
> >
> > It might make me typical wrt to bacon,
>
> It makes you a fraud in all areas, Ditch.

No, it makes me honest. When asked about your diet you just lie, what was it
now, "fallen apples and mustard cress"?

What a bad joke.

> > but bacon comprises a very small part
> > of my diet.
> >
> Irelevant.

It's very relevant. A person may eat bacon without knowing the source but
may be atypical wrt to the rest of their diet.

> > > > I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
> > > > the source of their veggies,
> > >
> > > Can you give an example of a vegan here who has "little concern about
> > > the source of their veggies"?
> >
> > Vegans here, specifically, are in denial.
> >
> You've got that the wrong way round,

No I don't, I have exactly the right way round.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> > > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't say that,
> > > >
> > > > What do you think having "no idea where your bacon comes from" makes
> > > > you?
> > >
> > > It might make me typical wrt to bacon,
> >
> > It makes you a fraud in all areas, Ditch.
>
> No, it makes me honest.

A fraud isn't an honest position to hold, Ditch.
>
> > > > > I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
> > > > > the source of their veggies,
> > > >
> > > > Can you give an example of a vegan here who has "little concern about
> > > > the source of their veggies"?
> > >
> > > Vegans here, specifically, are in denial.
> > >
> > You've got that the wrong way round,
>
> No I don't

Then why did you snip out the evidence showing
Etter's denial, Ditch ****.

You've got that the wrong way round, because
while no evidence exists where vegans deny the
fact that a small number of animals die for their
food, the meatarians here certainly deny it.

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15

What a ****** you are. You can't even troll properly.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote
> > > > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't say that,
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think having "no idea where your bacon comes from"
makes
> > > > > you?
> > > >
> > > > It might make me typical wrt to bacon,
> > >
> > > It makes you a fraud in all areas, Ditch.
> >
> > No, it makes me honest.
>
> A fraud isn't an honest position to hold, Ditch.

Then stop being one.

> > > > > > I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
> > > > > > the source of their veggies,
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you give an example of a vegan here who has "little concern
about
> > > > > the source of their veggies"?
> > > >
> > > > Vegans here, specifically, are in denial.
> > > >
> > > You've got that the wrong way round,
> >
> > No I don't
>
> Then why did you snip out the evidence showing
> Etter's denial, Ditch ****.

You have no moral authority to comment on snippage.

"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > > >
> > > (snip)
> > > > >
>
> > > So when you said elsewhere that raising animals for food obligates
> > > us to provide decent lives for them, you meant it was someone else's
> > > obligation to see they have decent lives, not yours.
> >
> > No, it's everyone's moral obligation. I do some things, and don't do >
others,
>
> Knowing full well the conditions on hog confinement farms, giving up
> factory-farmed pork products is more than you're willing to do?

I don't know the conditions the hogs live in.

> If you can't be discriminating in your meat purchases, don't pretend to
> care about the well-being of farm animals, Harrison/Dutch.

I do some things, and don't do others, just like everyone.

> > I am morally culpable, just like you.
>
> I don't buy industrial groceries.

You do other things, and most vegans do.

> > > You are morally bankrupt **** puddle and have no business trying to >
> pass yourself off as a welfarist, lukewarm or otherwise.
> >
> > Ad hominem.
>
> Damn right! You are a hypocritical, little shit who pays lipservice to
> farm animal welfare while the grease from factory-farmed pork drips off
> your chin.

I do some things and don't do others, I'm not perfect.

> How difficult is it to pass up the bacon, Dutch?

Not difficult at all. It's not difficult to give up any food.

> > > > > > any more than the typical vegan
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't say that,
> > >
> > > What do you think having "no idea where your bacon comes from" makes
> > > you?
> >
> > It might make me typical wrt to bacon, but bacon comprises a very
> > small part of my diet.
>
> What about the rest of your meat and dairy selections? Do you buy
> pasture-raised beef products? Free-range poultry? What do you have
> against swine, who are provably the most intelligent and psychologically
> delicate of farm animals?

I do some things and I don't do other things, more than some people, less
than others.

> > > > I said that a typical vegan has very little concern about
> > > > the source of their veggies,
> > >
> > > Can you give an example of a vegan here who has "little concern
> > > about the source of their veggies"?
> >
> > Vegans here, specifically, are in denial.
>
> What's this supposed to mean? I asked you who, specifically, has
> "little concern about the source of their veggies"? I'd like a name or
> two.

Derek Nash, Pete, Larry, virtually every new "ev" who stumbles along..

> > > > except they want it to be fresh and taste good, and they think if >
> > it's "organic" it'll be better for them.
> >
> > > And "they" think if it's "organic" it is gentler on the environment,
> > > including wildlife.
> >
> > Partially.
>
> You're not making sense. Vegans partially think or organic farming is
> partially gentler?

Some may think it's gentler, but I don't think that's their primary
motivation.

> > > >Given the clear choice, I always choose free range products at a
> > > > premium.
> > >
> > > Do you want us to believe free range pork products are unavailable
> > > in Canada?
> >
> > Canada is mighty big place, I don't know of any locally.
>
> Don't you think that someone with an obligation to support decent lives
> for farm animals should find a source for ethical pork products or
> forego the pleasure of eating bacon?

You're presuming that the source I currently use is unethical, I don't
accept that. I don't expect all vegans to grow their own food either.

> (snip)
> > >
> > > You have pretended to be an animal welfarist.
> >
> > I am in favour of animal welfare
>
> Whoopee-do! Try putting your money where your mouth is.

I do some things, I don't do others.
>
> > rather than animal rights.
>
> I know, I know, if we recognized animals' rights, it would be the end of
> human civilization. Amen.

ARAs have failed to extrapolate the idea of animal rights rationally.

> > I do some things
> > to support and promote it, some things I don't do.
>
> Again. What do you have against pigs?

Not a thing.

> > > Welfarists don't support
> > > factory farms
> >
> > Yes they do,
>
> I'm waiting for the list of animal welfare organizations that support
> factory farms. I'll even accept a list of verifiable welfarist
> individuals that do. And please don't dredge up industry organizations
> or spokesmen.

Everyone who believes in animal welfare but eats grocery store food supports
factory farms.

> > animal rights activists support factory farms all the time with
> > their purchases.
>
> How do you know what ARAs do "all the time"? I doubt you even know an
> animal rights activist personally. How do you come by this inside
> information.

They live in society just like me. I ask Derek Nash what he eats and he runs
for the hills.

> > > or pound seizures, for that matter.
> >
> > Stay on the topic, baby killer.
>
> It's the same topic. An alleged animal welfarist that actively supports
> the most egregious violations against animals.

How do you know that?

> And if you think calling me a "baby killer" disturbs me, you couldn't be
> more wrong. I am absolutely remorseless about my past abortions and I
> highly recommend the procedure to every pregnant human female. I
> consider it irresponsible and unethical for humans to breed. There are
> too goddamn many of us and not enough remaining habitat for other
> species.

There are plenty of pigs too.

> > > Or maybe you think
> > > they do?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Please provide a list of the animal welfare organizations that
> > > promote factory farming.
> >
> > Now are we talking about individuals who "support" with their personal
> > choices, or organizations who "promote"?
>
> I'm looking for some philosophical foundation for your finacial support
> of factory farming. If you want to tell me that all animal welfarists
> are hypocrites, I'm more than happy to believe you.

I buy what is readily available, and I assume a lot of it comes from factory
farms. I don't support the concept "philosophically", I support it in real
terms.

(snip)
> > > >
> > > > Bully for you.
> > >
> > > Instead of growing all that pesticide-laden,
> >
> > Herbicide,
>
> Herbicides are pesticides, Farmer Dunce.

Herbicides are not pesticides. Herbicides are used to control weeds,
pesticides are used to control insects.

> > and I use much less than most of the farmers around me, who have
> > mostly converted to "conservation farming".
> > I haven't used pesticides in years either.
>
> So when you said you were forced to control plant pests by the
> government, you were lying?

No, legislation requires that farmers control certain weeds, such as wild
oats.

> Oh, and let me stop you now before you pretend that conservation farming
> does not include crop rotation.

Conservation farming allows farming without summer fallow.

> > > Arctic-polluting,
> > > non-conservation farmed wheat,
> >
> > Conservation farming is more polluting than conventional farming.
>
> While conservation farming might require more herbicide, this is offset
> by a decrease in fertilizer compared to fields with depleted topsoil.

I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

> >It saves the soil from being blown
>
> It's not just wind erosion that's the problem, it loss of fertility in
> soils that are constantly laid bare and exposed to heat, air, saturation
> and frost.

>
> (snip)
>
> > Maybe all of us can do a little more here and a little more there,
>
> You mean like abstaining from factory-farmed pork? Is that "little"
> enough?

You don't get to tell me what I must do, it's a personal choice.

> > without getting on our self-righteous high-horses about it, like ARAs >
and vegans do.
>
> I don't think it is high-handed to expect someone who accepts the
> obligation to insure farm animal well-being to STOP BUYING
> FACTORY-FARMED PORK PRODUCTS!

Self-righteous ARAs don't tell me what to do. When vegans start admitting
thier own culpability in animal suffering I may start listening to them.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > > >
> > > (snip)
>
> > > Explain how purchasing factory-farmed pork supports "decent lives"
> > > for swine.
> >
> > Where did I say it did?
>
> Does it bother you at all that your actions do not coincide with your
> stated belief in man's "obligation" to food animals?

Does it bother you that your actions do not coincide with your stated belief
in animal rights?

> > > And what the hell is "undue pain and deprivation"?
> >
> > Conditions that cause obvious distress.
>
> You mean like the conditions in a CAFO?

That depends, I wouldn't assume so categorically.

> > Exactly what degree
> > > of pain and deprivation is due them?
> >
> > Every life contains *some* unavoidable pain and deprivation.
>
> That's nice, but it doesn't answer my question.

Yes it does.

What has a pig done to
> be "due" pain and deprivation?

Be born.

> The pain and deprivation inherent in a CAFO is entirely avoidable by
> simply banning confinement farms.

Or, we could do what you really want, and just kill off the human race.

"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> > "frlpwr" > wrote
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
> > > > impossible. Dutch disagrees with that.
> > > >
> > > Please list farm animal welfare reforms initiated by the welfarist > >
camp.
> >
> > The AR camp has co-opted most of the AW issues, because AW issues are >
what get the public's attention.
>
> Please list groups you consider animal welfare reform organizations.

Animal welfare is a personal issue. People do different things towards it,
depending on how they feel, part of that may be support for PeTA. That
doesn't mean those people support AR.

Dutch wrote:
>
(snip)

> Animal welfare is a personal issue.

Well, that's a surefire guarantee that nothing meaningful will get done.
Welfare reform might be a "personal issue" for do-nothings like you and
Harrison, wondering over your breakfast bacon just how bad life really
is for the animals on your plate.

But for real welfarists, the "issue" is organizing, educating,
investigating, advocating, watchdogging, litigating, lobbying,
petitioning, fund-raising and rescuing. All the things rightists do,
too.

Cripes, you're a lazy asshole and a very, very poor welfare (wink, wink)
advocate.

Here's a sample of HFA welfare reform at work, so you can see how the
big kids do it:

http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/usda_petition.html

> People do different things towards it,

Yes, and some people talk about it and never do anything, not even the
simplest thing like avoiding factory-farmed meat products.

> depending on how they feel,

You mean depending on if they feel hungry for bacon?

> part of that may be support for PeTA. That
> doesn't mean those people support AR.

Are you still harping on this? You must think everyone is an imbecile
but you. If people want to send money to PETA, they do. PETA does not
conceal its abolitionist bent. If people want to support animal welfare
reform groups, there are plenty of them out there singing for their
supper. Some people, like me, finance both.

Everyone accuses rightists of being dogmatic and uncompromising. When a
group like PETA shows flexibility and participates in a welfare effort,
they are said to be "co-opting". You animal-hating jack-offs are never
happy.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > Animal welfare is a personal issue.
>
> Well, that's a surefire guarantee that nothing meaningful will get done.

That's not true, individual consumers drive the marketplace as much or more
than "activists".

> Welfare reform might be a "personal issue" for do-nothings like you and
> Harrison, wondering over your breakfast bacon just how bad life really
> is for the animals on your plate.

At least I contemplate it, unlike vegans who imagine themselves to be gods.

> But for real welfarists, the "issue" is organizing, educating,
> investigating, advocating, watchdogging, litigating, lobbying,
> petitioning, fund-raising and rescuing. All the things rightists do,
> too.

Those are important, but at least as important are the choices ordinary
people make in the market.

> Cripes, you're a lazy asshole and a very, very poor welfare (wink, wink)
> advocate.

Sure I'm lazy, I do some things to try to benefit animals, and I fail to do
others, like most people. Not everyone is a saint like you, except you kill
babies.

> Here's a sample of HFA welfare reform at work, so you can see how the
> big kids do it:
>
> http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/usda_petition.html

Are you claiming credit for hfa?

> > People do different things towards it,
>
> Yes, and some people talk about it and never do anything, not even the
> simplest thing like avoiding factory-farmed meat products.

I avoid them, I just I don't look into the source of ALL my food, who does?

> > depending on how they feel,
>
> You mean depending on if they feel hungry for bacon?

Sure, that's part of it.

> > part of that may be support for PeTA. That
> > doesn't mean those people support AR.
>
> Are you still harping on this? You must think everyone is an imbecile
> but you. If people want to send money to PETA, they do. PETA does not
> conceal its abolitionist bent.

Bullshit, most of their campaigns revolve around fetching photos of cute,
cuddly kittens, puppies, calves, etc. People are sympathetic towards these
animals' suffering, period.

> If people want to support animal welfare
> reform groups, there are plenty of them out there singing for their
> supper. Some people, like me, finance both.

Oh right, I forgot, feral the saint.

> Everyone accuses rightists of being dogmatic and uncompromising.

They are.

When a
> group like PETA shows flexibility

What's being flexible about running campaigns that fill their coffers? It's
being opportunistic.

> and participates in a welfare effort,
> they are said to be "co-opting". You animal-hating jack-offs are never
> happy.

I'm happy PeTA does what they do to help animals, I'm just not deceived
about their motives.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > > I said that a typical vegan has very little
> > > concern about the source of their veggies,
> > >
> > Can you give an example of a vegan here who
> > has "little concern about the source of their veggies"?

> Vegans here, specifically, are in denial.

You've got that the wrong way round, because
while no evidence exists where vegans deny the
fact that a small number of animals die for their
food, the meatarians here certainly deny it.

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
Rick Etter 2003-11-15

Dutch wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote
> > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > Animal welfare is a personal issue.
> >
> > Well, that's a surefire guarantee that nothing meaningful will get > > done.
>
> That's not true, individual consumers drive the marketplace as much or > more than "activists".

Individual effects are insignificant. This is especially true when the
individual in question buys free-range poultry on Tuesday and
factory-farmed pork on Friday.
>
> > Welfare reform might be a "personal issue" for do-nothings like you > > and Harrison, wondering over your breakfast bacon just how bad life > > really is for the animals on your plate.
>
> At least I contemplate it,

How do the workings of your small mind help hogs?

> unlike vegans who imagine themselves to be gods.

I believe the basis of veganism is interspecies humility. What you
perceive as godlike is merely the vegan expectation, the imperative
really, that other people feel and act the same. This is not because
see ourselves as righteous. We want to stop the bleeding.

> > But for real welfarists, the "issue" is organizing, educating,
> > investigating, advocating, watchdogging, litigating, lobbying,
> > petitioning, fund-raising and rescuing. All the things rightists
> > do, too.
>
> Those are important, but at least as important are the choices
> ordinary people make in the market.
>
No, ordinary choices are not important. Focused, consistent choices of
groups of people over time are important.

> > Cripes, you're a lazy asshole and a very, very poor welfare (wink,
> > wink) advocate.
>
> Sure I'm lazy, I do some things to try to benefit animals, and I fail > to do others, like most people. Not everyone is a saint like you,
> except you kill babies.

I've never killed a baby. I've had others kill embryos for me. You do
know the difference, right? Are you opposed to stem cell research?
>
> > Here's a sample of HFA welfare reform at work, so you can see how
> > the big kids do it:
> >
> > http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/usda_petition.html
>
> Are you claiming credit for hfa?

Do you claim credit for every link you provide?
>
> > > People do different things towards it,
> >
> > Yes, and some people talk about it and never do anything, not even
> > the simplest thing like avoiding factory-farmed meat products.
>
> I avoid them, I just I don't look into the source of ALL my food, who > does?

All you have to do is look at the package. If a meat product is
"free-range","cage-free", "pasture-raised", "antibiotic-free" or
"organic", you can bet it will be plastered all over the label.
>
> > > depending on how they feel,
> >
> > You mean depending on if they feel hungry for bacon?
>
> Sure, that's part of it.

So your "obligation" to food animals waxes and wanes according to your
tummy rumbling?
>
> > > part of that may be support for PeTA. That
> > > doesn't mean those people support AR.
> >
> > Are you still harping on this? You must think everyone is an imbecile
> > but you. If people want to send money to PETA, they do. PETA does not
> > conceal its abolitionist bent.
>
> Bullshit, most of their campaigns revolve around fetching photos of
> cute, cuddly kittens, puppies, calves, etc.

Bullshit, PETA's slogan, bannered on every campaign alert is, "Animals
are not ours to eat, to wear, experiment on or use for entertainment."
You can't be more abolitionist than that.

Yes, they sometimes use pictures of puppies and kittens in their
campaigns. Why shouldn't they when the campaign focuses on adopting
pound animals, (you know, the ones you want to sell to research
institutes), pet food manufacturers or spay/neutering? They also use
pictures of downer hogs, would that appeal to you more? I doubt it.

> People are sympathetic towards these animals' suffering, period.

Sure, and many of these same people are sympathetic to chickens, cattle,
hogs, lab rats, circus elephants and wildlife. Is there supposed to be
something wrong with this?
>
> > If people want to support animal welfare
> > reform groups, there are plenty of them out there singing for their
> > supper. Some people, like me, finance both.
>
> Oh right, I forgot, feral the saint.

You don't have to be a saint to sponsor a rescued hog at Suwanna Ranch
or the Farm Sanctuary, to volunteer at HFA's San Francisco office or to
show up at their demonstrations.
>
> > Everyone accuses rightists of being dogmatic and uncompromising.
>
> They are.

If they were, they wouldn't be involved in welfare reform which is all
about repairing the plumbing, not bringing down the house.
>
> When a
> > group like PETA shows flexibility
>
> What's being flexible about running campaigns that fill their coffers? > It's being opportunistic.

If they use the sad face of a pound puppy to wrangle donations used for
chicken welfare, it's okay by me.
>
> > and participates in a welfare effort,
> > they are said to be "co-opting". You animal-hating jack-offs are
> > never happy.
>
> I'm happy PeTA does what they do to help animals, I'm just not
> deceived about their motives.

Neither is anyone else who can read.

What do you suppose PETA's motives are for offering to pay the
transportation costs to get five local feral dogs, wanted dead or alive
by San Mateo Animal Control, to Best Friends Sanctuary in Utah? What's
their angle, Dutch?

Pit_Bull wrote:

>>No animal benefits from being born, ****wit; not one.
>
>
> What about you?

Not even I. No animal benefits merely from being born;
it's a logical absurdity.

Now that I'm alive, I benefit from continued life. You
benefit from my continued life, too, although you're
too ****ing stupid to realize it.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:53:27 GMT, Pit_Bull > wrote:

>
>>No animal benefits from being born, ****wit; not one.
>
>What about you?

The Gonad doesn't think that his own son benefitted from
anything before he could conceive of the idea of "benefit":
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: Problems for ****wit, too
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:11:43 -0700
Message-ID: >

No, ****wit, that's not why I *know* animals don't
"benefit" from "getting to experience life". . . They
don't because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and if he still can't, then he still can't benefit from anything. It
also shows that Gonad believes the first being to benefit from
anything was the first being to conceive the idea, and nothing
had ever benefitted before that instant.

>Is that why you're such a whining ****ant all the time?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:59:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison ) wrote:
>
>> It always
>> gets back to opposition to considering what the animals get out
>> of the arrangement
>
>The only thing the animals get out of the arrangement
>is death.

Wrong.

>There is no benefit from being born.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:42:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:30:24 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Dutch wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >(snip)
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Why?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
>> >> >> spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>> >> >
>> >> >Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns?
>> >>
>> >> "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
>> >impossible.
>> >
>> >AW is only relevant inasmuch as there are animals to receive it, it's not
>a
>> >goal onto itself.
>> >
>> >> Dutch disagrees with that.
>> >
>> >I neither agree nor disagree, it's just a stupid statement.
>>
>> It's just another fact you don't want people to consider because
>> it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
>
>Get this through your head, I DO NOT support the elimination of domestic
>animals. That doesn't mean I must support every bit of two-bit sophism that
>comes down the pipe.
>
>> It always
>> gets back to opposition to considering what the animals get out
>> of the arrangement...unless it's something terrible of course...you
>> all feel we should consider the bad things and not the good.
>
>That is false. AW is all about "considering what the animals get out of the
>arrangement". It is of utmost importance in AW, ethically, that domestic
>animals have decent lives and are not made to suffer undue pain and
>deprivation. That's because raising them for our benefit places a moral
>obligation on us.
>
>When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that we should
>be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.

If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our considerations
regarding them.

>You have it
>backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty to do so.

That's another part of it.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:33:13 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>(snip)
>
>> But when I eat pork I wonder if their lives are as bad as "ARAs" want > us to believe they are.
>> >
>Another prime example of the inaction of animal welfarists, wondering
>how bad animals might have it. Is that it?

Meaning that you don't? Is that it?

>Is that how you insure your
>much touted "decent lives" for farm animals?
>
>How about supporting producers who practice good husbandry, asswipe?
>You know, like you're constantly babbling about.

Now why all of a sudden are you encouraging me to do that, when
you "ARAs" have always been opposed to the suggestion that
anyone do it?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:12 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:38:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:41:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >[..]
>> >> >> >> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use
>> >it.
>> >> >In your
>> >> >> >> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to
>> >obtain
>> >> >an
>> >> >> >> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain
>> >not
>> >> >due
>> >> >> >> > to you.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
>> >> >> >> animals "getting to experience life".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >None that I can see.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience life
>> >> >> is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss.
>> >> >
>> >> >Because only once something exists does it aquire the ability to
>suffer a
>> >> >loss. The animal can't "gain" it's life because "it" doesn't exist
>prior
>> >to
>> >> >being conceived.
>> >> >
>> >> >> And then you're
>> >> >> back to (NOT!) explaining how a dead animal can experience the loss
>> >> >> of its life
>> >> >
>> >> >Who said that?
>> >> >
>> >> >...uh...or is it only a live animal who can experience the loss
>> >> >> of its life?
>> >> >
>> >> >Brilliant.
>> >>
>> >> It could only experience the course of action leading up to it, not
>a
>> >loss
>> >> from loss of life since it would cease to exist when it lost its life.
>> >
>> >What are you getting at?
>>
>> It's all right there. If you want to take it from the other direction:
>the
>> dead body of an animal can't experience any loss, so an animal can't
>> experience a loss from the loss of its life. It can only experience the
>> things which lead up to the loss of its life. From your position, any
>course
>> of events leading up to the slaughter of an animal--regardless of whether
>> or not they involve much suffering for the animal--cancel out anything
>> positive about the life the animal had, regardless of the quality of that
>life.
>
>I've never said anything of the kind.

Then explain anything positive about it.

>The kind of moral bargaining with life
>you are contemplating is foul sophism.

It's what people have been doing for 10 thousand years. Longer
than that actually. It's what you and I do every day, even when we
don't discuss it here.

wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:59:53 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It always
>>>gets back to opposition to considering what the animals get out
>>>of the arrangement
>>
>>The only thing the animals get out of the arrangement
>>is death.
>
>
> Wrong.

No, right. They get nothing out of being born; not a
thing.

>
>
>>There is no benefit from being born.
>
>

> wrote
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
> >When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that we
should
> >be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.
>
> If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our
considerations
> regarding them.

Why? What function does this "consideration of the good" have? How does it
help the animals?

> >You have it
> >backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty to do
so.
>
> That's another part of it.

It's the only part of it. Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more
than empty sophistry.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:33:13 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >(snip)
> >
> >> But when I eat pork I wonder if their lives are as bad as "ARAs" want >
us to believe they are.
> >> >
> >Another prime example of the inaction of animal welfarists, wondering
> >how bad animals might have it. Is that it?
>
> Meaning that you don't? Is that it?

No, she means you don't do anything but flap your gums.

> >Is that how you insure your
> >much touted "decent lives" for farm animals?
> >
> >How about supporting producers who practice good husbandry, asswipe?
> >You know, like you're constantly babbling about.
>
> Now why all of a sudden are you encouraging me to do that, when
> you "ARAs" have always been opposed to the suggestion that
> anyone do it?

She wants you to do it moron. *If* you *must* eat meat then patronize
producers who practice good husbandry.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:12 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:38:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:41:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[..]
> >> >> >> >> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to
use
> >> >it.
> >> >> >In your
> >> >> >> >> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to
> >> >obtain
> >> >> >an
> >> >> >> >> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral
gain
> >> >not
> >> >> >due
> >> >> >> >> > to you.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
> >> >> >> >> animals "getting to experience life".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >None that I can see.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience
life
> >> >> >> is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Because only once something exists does it aquire the ability to
> >suffer a
> >> >> >loss. The animal can't "gain" it's life because "it" doesn't exist
> >prior
> >> >to
> >> >> >being conceived.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> And then you're
> >> >> >> back to (NOT!) explaining how a dead animal can experience the
loss
> >> >> >> of its life
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Who said that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >...uh...or is it only a live animal who can experience the loss
> >> >> >> of its life?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Brilliant.
> >> >>
> >> >> It could only experience the course of action leading up to it,
not
> >a
> >> >loss
> >> >> from loss of life since it would cease to exist when it lost its
life.
> >> >
> >> >What are you getting at?
> >>
> >> It's all right there. If you want to take it from the other
direction:
> >the
> >> dead body of an animal can't experience any loss, so an animal can't
> >> experience a loss from the loss of its life. It can only experience the
> >> things which lead up to the loss of its life. From your position, any
> >course
> >> of events leading up to the slaughter of an animal--regardless of
whether
> >> or not they involve much suffering for the animal--cancel out anything
> >> positive about the life the animal had, regardless of the quality of
that
> >life.
> >
> >I've never said anything of the kind.
>
> Then explain anything positive about it.

About what?

> >The kind of moral bargaining with life
> >you are contemplating is foul sophism.
>
> It's what people have been doing for 10 thousand years. Longer
> than that actually. It's what you and I do every day, even when we
> don't discuss it here.

I've never done *it*, nether have most people. It takes a person of
exceptionally low moral character and intelligence to fall for the logic of
the larder. The lives of animals you "encourage" by eating meat are not
chips you can earn in a game of morality poker. The very idea is
preposterous and degrading.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:50:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>> >When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that we
>should
>> >be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.
>>
>> If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our
>considerations
>> regarding them.
>
>Why? What function does this "consideration of the good" have? How does it
>help the animals?

A better question might be how could it help future animals. But that wouldn't
matter if you're unwilling to consider future animals, and you damn sure seem to
spend your posts at me trying to prevent thought being given to them.

>> >You have it
>> >backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty to do
>so.
>>
>> That's another part of it.
>
>It's the only part of it.

It's another part of it. And it's really just bullshit since we don't actually have
any duty to make the good happen anyway. I would have thought you were
aware of that by now, after seeing the things that go on on this planet.

>Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more
>than empty sophistry.
>

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:52:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:33:13 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >(snip)
>> >
>> >> But when I eat pork I wonder if their lives are as bad as "ARAs" want >
>us to believe they are.
>> >> >
>> >Another prime example of the inaction of animal welfarists, wondering
>> >how bad animals might have it. Is that it?
>>
>> Meaning that you don't? Is that it?
>
>No, she means you don't do anything but flap your gums.

Yeah? I hope she's not that stupid. You insult her. Anyone reading
this should have enough brain to consider I might also tap my fingers.

>> >Is that how you insure your
>> >much touted "decent lives" for farm animals?
>> >
>> >How about supporting producers who practice good husbandry, asswipe?
>> >You know, like you're constantly babbling about.
>>
>> Now why all of a sudden are you encouraging me to do that, when
>> you "ARAs" have always been opposed to the suggestion that
>> anyone do it?
>
>She wants you to do it moron. *If* you *must* eat meat then patronize
>producers who practice good husbandry.


Why would I do that?

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:50:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >> >When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that we
> >should
> >> >be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.
> >>
> >> If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our
> >considerations
> >> regarding them.
> >
> >Why? What function does this "consideration of the good" have? How does
it
> >help the animals?
>
> A better question might be how could it help future animals.

I'll take that evasion as meaning it doesn't help existing animals AT ALL.
I agree.

> But that wouldn't
> matter if you're unwilling to consider future animals, and you damn sure
seem to
> spend your posts at me trying to prevent thought being given to them.

All right, assuming we are going to breed more animals for food, how does
this "consideration" of the good they might experience help them?

> >> >You have it
> >> >backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty to do
> >so.
> >>
> >> That's another part of it.
> >
> >It's the only part of it.
>
> It's another part of it. And it's really just bullshit since we don't
actually have
> any duty to make the good happen anyway. I would have thought you were
> aware of that by now, after seeing the things that go on on this planet.

Thank you for admitting that you don't believe humans have any moral duty to
treat animals humanely, we've known it all along, cock-fighter. Your only
concern is constructing a thought pattern in which you are able to
congratulate yourself for gobbling down pork chops and chicken wings and
fighting roosters.

>
> >Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more
> >than empty sophistry.
> >
>

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:29:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:50:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >> >When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that we
>> >should
>> >> >be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.
>> >>
>> >> If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our
>> >considerations
>> >> regarding them.
>> >
>> >Why? What function does this "consideration of the good" have? How does
>it
>> >help the animals?
>>
>> A better question might be how could it help future animals.
>
>I'll take that evasion as meaning it doesn't help existing animals AT ALL.

Of course it doesn't. Neither does veg*nism. What does?

>I agree.
>
>> But that wouldn't
>> matter if you're unwilling to consider future animals, and you damn sure
>seem to
>> spend your posts at me trying to prevent thought being given to them.
>
>All right, assuming we are going to breed more animals for food, how does
>this "consideration" of the good they might experience help them?

How "does" it? You know, to be as picky as you pretend to be you
sure ask some foolish questions. The question should be how "could"
it help them, one reason being (there are more but that's beyond you)
because they don't even exist yet. So now, how "could" it help them?
Again, it's beyond you or you would already know how it could help
them.

>> >> >You have it
>> >> >backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty to do
>> >so.
>> >>
>> >> That's another part of it.
>> >
>> >It's the only part of it.
>>
>> It's another part of it. And it's really just bullshit since we don't
>actually have
>> any duty to make the good happen anyway. I would have thought you were
>> aware of that by now, after seeing the things that go on on this planet.
>
>Thank you for admitting that you don't believe humans have any moral duty to
>treat animals humanely,

I know that humans don't have any moral duty. If you think we do, then
what do you think assigns us that duty? With all of the horrible things people
and animals do to each other, it's quite obvious that there is no duty or obligation
to treat each other humanely. It's a choice we make, not a duty we have. But
again, that's apparently beyond you.

>we've known it all along, cock-fighter. Your only
>concern is constructing a thought pattern in which you are able to
>congratulate yourself for gobbling down pork chops and chicken wings and
>fighting roosters.

My concern is to point out that some animals benefit from being raised by
humans and some don't. Yours is to insist that none do, which is a stupid
and extremely dishonest thing to insist upon.

>> >Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more
>> >than empty sophistry.
>> >
>>
>
>

****wit David Harrison ) wrote:


> My concern is to point out that some animals benefit from being raised by
> humans and some don't.

NO animals 'benefit' from being born, ****wit. Not a
single one. The very idea is absurd.

> Yours is to insist that none do,

He is correct: no animal 'benefits' from being born.

> which is a stupid
> and extremely dishonest thing to insist upon.

No, his and my point is the honest and smart one; your
claim is based on stupidity and is dishonest. No
animal 'benefits' from being born. An animal has to
exist BEFORE it can benefit from anything.