Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote in message ... > 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. Then it's dishonest of you to imply that it does. > Neither does veg*nism. That's debatable, a smaller demand for meat may mean better conditions for the remaining ones. > What does? More space, better lighting, cleaner conditions, quiet, proper diet, interaction with others in a natural environment, caring handlers, etc., things you don't care about 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? > > 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. I can only conclude from that display of confusion that this "consideration" of the good helps no animals. Thank you, I already knew that it's only purpose was to make YOU feel better. > > >> >> >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. You're wrong. > If you think we do, then > what do you think assigns us that duty? Your moral duties are a function of your membership in a social community. If your social community says that fighting roosters is immoral, then your moral duty is to not do it. > 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. That just shows that people regularly fail to live up to their moral duties, not that those duties don't exist. > It's a choice we make, not a duty we have. We have a choice to live up to or *not* live up to our moral duties, that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you die, those duties continue to exist and apply to other people, so they obviously are not soley a function of you. Your point of view borders on sociopathy. > But again, that's apparently beyond you. No, it's just wrong-headed, like most of what you think. > >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. That does not have the significance that you attempt to imply it does. > Yours is to insist that none do, No, mine is to point out that your "concern" is misplaced and wrong-headed. > which is a stupid > and extremely dishonest thing to insist upon. Since it's not true that doesn't apply. > >> >Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more > >> >than empty sophistry. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:09:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> 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. > >Then it's dishonest of you to imply that it does. > >> Neither does veg*nism. > >That's debatable, a smaller demand for meat may mean better conditions for >the remaining ones. > >> What does? > >More space, better lighting, cleaner conditions, quiet, proper diet, >interaction with others in a natural environment, caring handlers, etc., >things you don't care about 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? >> >> 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. > >I can only conclude from that display of confusion that this "consideration" >of the good helps no animals. Thank you, I already knew that it's only >purpose was to make YOU feel better. > >> >> >> >> >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. > >You're wrong. > >> If you think we do, then >> what do you think assigns us that duty? > >Your moral duties are a function of your membership in a social community. >If your social community says that fighting roosters is immoral, then your >moral duty is to not do it. I don't do it. Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature rooster fight for his life if he wants to. There are more things to consider as always, but you can't get as far as "we" got this time. >> 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. > >That just shows that people regularly fail to live up to their moral duties, >not that those duties don't exist. > >> It's a choice we make, not a duty we have. > >We have a choice to live up to or *not* live up to our moral duties, that >doesn't mean they don't exist. If you die, those duties continue to exist >and apply to other people, so they obviously are not soley a function of >you. Your point of view borders on sociopathy. > >> But again, that's apparently beyond you. > >No, it's just wrong-headed, like most of what you think. > >> >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. > >That does not have the significance that you attempt to imply it does. > >> Yours is to insist that none do, > >No, mine is to point out that your "concern" is misplaced and wrong-headed. > >> which is a stupid >> and extremely dishonest thing to insist upon. > >Since it's not true that doesn't apply. > >> >> >Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more >> >> >than empty sophistry. Merry Christmas! |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:09:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> 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. > > > >Then it's dishonest of you to imply that it does. > > > >> Neither does veg*nism. > > > >That's debatable, a smaller demand for meat may mean better conditions for > >the remaining ones. > > > >> What does? > > > >More space, better lighting, cleaner conditions, quiet, proper diet, > >interaction with others in a natural environment, caring handlers, etc., > >things you don't care about 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? > >> > >> 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. > > > >I can only conclude from that display of confusion that this "consideration" > >of the good helps no animals. Thank you, I already knew that it's only > >purpose was to make YOU feel better. > > > >> > >> >> >> >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. > > > >You're wrong. > > > >> If you think we do, then > >> what do you think assigns us that duty? > > > >Your moral duties are a function of your membership in a social community. > >If your social community says that fighting roosters is immoral, then your > >moral duty is to not do it. > > I don't do it. I didn't say you did, it was just an example. > Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby > chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature rooster > fight for his life if he wants to. Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second, entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence towards animals. It's considered immoral. > There are more things to consider as > always, but you can't get as far as "we" got this time. I thoroughly refuted about five statements by you in this post alone, that's enough for now. > >> 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. > > > >That just shows that people regularly fail to live up to their moral duties, > >not that those duties don't exist. > > > >> It's a choice we make, not a duty we have. > > > >We have a choice to live up to or *not* live up to our moral duties, that > >doesn't mean they don't exist. If you die, those duties continue to exist > >and apply to other people, so they obviously are not soley a function of > >you. Your point of view borders on sociopathy. > > > >> But again, that's apparently beyond you. > > > >No, it's just wrong-headed, like most of what you think. > > > >> >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. > > > >That does not have the significance that you attempt to imply it does. > > > >> Yours is to insist that none do, > > > >No, mine is to point out that your "concern" is misplaced and wrong-headed. > > > >> which is a stupid > >> and extremely dishonest thing to insist upon. > > > >Since it's not true that doesn't apply. > > > >> >> >Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more > >> >> >than empty sophistry. > > Merry Christmas! Same to you. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:09:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> > wrote in message >> .. . >> >> 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. >> > >> >Then it's dishonest of you to imply that it does. >> > >> >> Neither does veg*nism. >> > >> >That's debatable, a smaller demand for meat may mean better conditions >for >> >the remaining ones. >> > >> >> What does? >> > >> >More space, better lighting, cleaner conditions, quiet, proper diet, >> >interaction with others in a natural environment, caring handlers, etc., >> >things you don't care about 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? >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> >I can only conclude from that display of confusion that this >"consideration" >> >of the good helps no animals. Thank you, I already knew that it's only >> >purpose was to make YOU feel better. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >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. >> > >> >You're wrong. >> > >> >> If you think we do, then >> >> what do you think assigns us that duty? >> > >> >Your moral duties are a function of your membership in a social >community. >> >If your social community says that fighting roosters is immoral, then >your >> >moral duty is to not do it. >> >> I don't do it. > >I didn't say you did, it was just an example. > >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature rooster >> fight for his life if he wants to. > >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second, >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence >towards animals. It's considered immoral. One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who lay the eggs to provide the fryers. It also provides about 6 weeks of life for billions of cage free chicks. The other provides life for however many game chickens, which vary in quality and length of time. But. Many of those birds have very good lives, and a lot of them are running free. The hens never have to go fight. The male chicks who don't make it to maturity never have to go fight, which is the majority of them. Those who do go fight and die don't have to do it again. Those who go fight and do well are often kept as brood fowl and live for over 10 years, being well cared for and having a good life with several hens. It's the type of small farm situation that people often act like is a good thing, but in this case they act differently. And why? Is it out of consideration for the animals? No! It's only out of consideration for themselves/**yourself!**. >> There are more things to consider as >> always, but you can't get as far as "we" got this time. > >I thoroughly refuted about five statements by you in this post alone, You haven't refuted even one. All you have done is show that your ethical equation only considers the way that you personally think about things, and has between little and no consideration for how these things influence animals. That's the way it always is, and what we're really disagreeing about. I believe the way animals are influenced should be our biggest consideration when considering human influence on animals, but you (laughably? saddly? stupidly? proudly? desperately? all of those things!!!) feel that aspect should *not* be considered. It always comes back to you only care about you: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian Subject: Credible info on how other farm animals live + a little extra Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:51:16 -0700 Message-ID: > > You can't explain why life of a positive value is of no benefit to you, or > to animals. Why should I, it's not what I'm saying. What you need to show is how the life *of a chicken* in a barn somewhere has ethical value to ME as a chicken consumer. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ to the point that you are opposed to giving consideration toward the animals. In that way you are in agreement with the "ARAs". |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] [..] > >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby > >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature rooster > >> fight for his life if he wants to. > > > >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is > >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second, > >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence > >towards animals. It's considered immoral. > > One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who > lay the eggs to provide the fryers. Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to understand it. Have a good Christmas. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
Dutch wrote:
> > wrote > >>>Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is >>>considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second, >>>entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence >>>towards animals. It's considered immoral. >> >> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who >>lay the eggs to provide the fryers. > > > Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to understand > it. > > Have a good Christmas. ****wit is not the sort of worthy opponent to whom one offers good wishes. I wish ill on no person, but there are those, like ****wit, to whom I never would wish anything good, either. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:04:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >[..] > >[..] >> >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby >> >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature >rooster >> >> fight for his life if he wants to. >> > >> >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is >> >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second, >> >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence >> >towards animals. It's considered immoral. >> >> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who >> lay the eggs to provide the fryers. > >Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to understand >it. It says nothing to disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides life for billions of animals. In fact, there is nothing that does or *could* disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides life for billions of animals. So the "best" that anyone is capable of doing, is saying that the animals' deaths are all that should be taken into consideration, without providing a decent reason why people should restrict their thinking in a way that distorts their view of reality in such a huge way. To "think" that none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by today benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. >Have a good Christmas. Thank you. I did, and hope that you did as well. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
|
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote in message ... > On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:04:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > wrote > >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >[..] > > > >[..] > >> >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby > >> >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature > >rooster > >> >> fight for his life if he wants to. > >> > > >> >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is > >> >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second, > >> >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence > >> >towards animals. It's considered immoral. > >> > >> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who > >> lay the eggs to provide the fryers. > > > >Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to understand > >it. > > It says nothing to disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides > life for billions of animals. That's not what it's trying to do. > In fact, there is nothing that does or *could* > disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides life for billions of > animals. So the "best" that anyone is capable of doing, is saying that the > animals' deaths are all that should be taken into consideration, without > providing a decent reason why people should restrict their thinking in a > way that distorts their view of reality in such a huge way. To "think" that > none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by today > benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral significance from something that has none. > >Have a good Christmas. > > Thank you. I did, and hope that you did as well. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:46:33 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:04:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > wrote >> >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >[..] >> > >> >[..] >> >> >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby >> >> >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature >> >rooster >> >> >> fight for his life if he wants to. >> >> > >> >> >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is >is >> >> >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the >second, >> >> >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence >> >> >towards animals. It's considered immoral. >> >> >> >> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who >> >> lay the eggs to provide the fryers. >> > >> >Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to >understand >> >it. >> >> It says nothing to disprove the fact that raising animals for food >provides >> life for billions of animals. > >That's not what it's trying to do. > >> In fact, there is nothing that does or *could* >> disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides life for billions >of >> animals. So the "best" that anyone is capable of doing, is saying that the >> animals' deaths are all that should be taken into consideration, without >> providing a decent reason why people should restrict their thinking in a >> way that distorts their view of reality in such a huge way. To "think" >that >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by today >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. > >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral >significance from something that has none. If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance. >> >Have a good Christmas. >> >> Thank you. I did, and hope that you did as well. > |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote: > >> To "think" that > >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by today > >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. > > > >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral > >significance from something that has none. > > If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance. That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just doesn't happen to be one of them. If a pig lives in a barn, and you happen to be a worker in that barn, it's morally signicant whether you handle that pig with care and respect or if you club it with a piece of re-bar. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> To "think" that >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by >today >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. >> > >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral >> >significance from something that has none. >> >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance. > >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just >doesn't happen to be one of them. You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much consideration as their deaths. Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss. If you think that instant that they die makes their whole lives not worth living, then you're in the same boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason. >If a pig lives in a barn, and you happen to be a worker in that barn, it's >morally signicant whether you handle that pig with care and respect or if >you club it with a piece of re-bar. Agreed. I also believe the radicalness of PeTA causes much harm to animals. I've known kids who work in chicken houses picking up the dead chicks, who would do things to the poor living ones (like stomp them or throw them through a fan...) as a lame defiance toward "AR" groups. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > wrote > >> "Dutch" > wrote: > > > >> >> To "think" that > >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by > >today > >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. > >> > > >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral > >> >significance from something that has none. > >> > >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance. > > > >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just > >doesn't happen to be one of them. > > You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much consideration > as their deaths. You keep repeating that "their lives should be given consideration", that is the self-serving logic of the larder. It implies that we ought to conclude that we have done something morally admirable based simply on the fact that animals we exploit are alive. You go even further, you don't require, as Singer does that we raise animals in an idyllic environment, you don't even require that we actually breed the animals ourselves, you think we ought to be congratulated for simply buying animal products. > Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are > not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss. They aren't dead when they are killed, they're still alive. > If you think that instant > that they die makes their whole lives not worth living, The instant they die they cease to be a liability and become "animal products", hence they begin to have value to humans. In that sense, we view them as having negative value when they are alive (they consume resources) which should be a clue to you that we do not deserve moral credit for those lives. At no time in the process did the very fact that they are alive qualify as a moral credit to those who raise them or demand those products. > then you're in the same > boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason. The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:45:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > wrote >> >> "Dutch" > wrote: >> > >> >> >> To "think" that >> >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by >> >today >> >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. >> >> > >> >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some >moral >> >> >significance from something that has none. >> >> >> >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance. >> > >> >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just >> >doesn't happen to be one of them. >> >> You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much >consideration >> as their deaths. > >You keep repeating that "their lives should be given consideration", that is >the self-serving logic of the larder. It implies that we ought to conclude >that we have done something morally admirable based simply on the fact that >animals we exploit are alive. You go even further, you don't require, as >Singer does that we raise animals in an idyllic environment, you don't even >require that we actually breed the animals ourselves, you think we ought to >be congratulated for simply buying animal products. > >> Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are >> not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss. > >They aren't dead when they are killed, they're still alive. Things they suffer throughout their lives are sometimes more disturbing to them than their deaths: __________________________________________________ _______ Reactions to the throat cut The variable of reactions to the incision must be separated from the variable of the time required for the animal to become completely insensible. Recordings of EEG or evoked potentials measure the time required for the animal to lose consciousness. They are not measures of pain. Careful observations of the animal's behavioural reactions to the cut are one of the best ways to determine if cutting the throat without prior stunning is painful. The time required for the animals to become unconscious will be discussed later. [...] Blood on the equipment did not appear to upset the cattle. They voluntarily entered the box when the rear gate was opened. Some cattle licked the blood. In all three restraint systems, the animals had little or no reaction to the throat cut. There was a slight flinch when the blade first touched the throat. This flinch was much less vigorous than an animal's reaction to an eartag punch. There was no further reaction as the cut proceeded. Both carotids were severed in all animals. Some animals in the modified ASPCA pen were held so loosely by the head holder and rear pusher gate that they could have easily pulled away from the knife. [...] http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ I'll never be convinced that such a death destroys any positive value their lives have had. But of course you don't believe their lives have any positive value at all, and their deaths are all you consider. >> If you think that instant >> that they die makes their whole lives not worth living, > >The instant they die they cease to be a liability and become "animal >products", hence they begin to have value to humans. In that sense, we view >them as having negative value when they are alive (they consume resources) >which should be a clue to you that we do not deserve moral credit for those >lives. At no time in the process did the very fact that they are alive >qualify as a moral credit to those who raise them or demand those products. You are consistent in your total lack of consideration for the animals. The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which some do and some don't. >> then you're in the same >> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason. > >The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position. We are all in the same position in regards to whether or not death makes life not worth having experienced. You feel that it does, regardless of quality of life, or the amount of suffering involved in death. I feel that it depends on the particular situations. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:45:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > wrote > >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >> > wrote > >> >> "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> To "think" that > >> >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by > >> >today > >> >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. > >> >> > > >> >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some > >moral > >> >> >significance from something that has none. > >> >> > >> >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance. > >> > > >> >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just > >> >doesn't happen to be one of them. > >> > >> You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much > >consideration > >> as their deaths. > > > >You keep repeating that "their lives should be given consideration", that is > >the self-serving logic of the larder. It implies that we ought to conclude > >that we have done something morally admirable based simply on the fact that > >animals we exploit are alive. You go even further, you don't require, as > >Singer does that we raise animals in an idyllic environment, you don't even > >require that we actually breed the animals ourselves, you think we ought to > >be congratulated for simply buying animal products. > > > >> Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are > >> not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss. > > > >They aren't dead when they are killed, they're still alive. > > Things they suffer throughout their lives are sometimes more disturbing > to them than their deaths: > __________________________________________________ _______ > Reactions to the throat cut > > The variable of reactions to the incision must be separated from the variable of > the time required for the animal to become completely insensible. Recordings of > EEG or evoked potentials measure the time required for the animal to lose > consciousness. They are not measures of pain. Careful observations of the > animal's behavioural reactions to the cut are one of the best ways to determine > if cutting the throat without prior stunning is painful. The time required for the > animals to become unconscious will be discussed later. > [...] > Blood on the equipment did not appear to upset the cattle. They voluntarily > entered the box when the rear gate was opened. Some cattle licked the blood. > > In all three restraint systems, the animals had little or no reaction to the throat cut. > There was a slight flinch when the blade first touched the throat. This flinch was > much less vigorous than an animal's reaction to an eartag punch. There was no > further reaction as the cut proceeded. Both carotids were severed in all animals. > Some animals in the modified ASPCA pen were held so loosely by the head holder > and rear pusher gate that they could have easily pulled away from the knife. > [...] > http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > I'll never be convinced that such a death destroys any positive value their > lives have had. But of course you don't believe their lives have any positive > value at all, and their deaths are all you consider. > > >> If you think that instant > >> that they die makes their whole lives not worth living, > > > >The instant they die they cease to be a liability and become "animal > >products", hence they begin to have value to humans. In that sense, we view > >them as having negative value when they are alive (they consume resources) > >which should be a clue to you that we do not deserve moral credit for those > >lives. At no time in the process did the very fact that they are alive > >qualify as a moral credit to those who raise them or demand those products. > > You are consistent in your total lack of consideration for the animals. You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a credit for their lives. > The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to > whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which > some do and some don't. That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit and some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant something. > >> then you're in the same > >> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason. > > > >The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position. > > We are all in the same position in regards to whether or not death > makes life not worth having experienced. You feel that it does, regardless > of quality of life, or the amount of suffering involved in death. I feel that it > depends on the particular situations. None of that is meaningful in this discussion, you're off on a stupid tangent. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:45:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> > wrote >> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> To "think" that >> >> >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove >by >> >> >today >> >> >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some >> >moral >> >> >> >significance from something that has none. >> >> >> >> >> >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance. >> >> > >> >> >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just >> >> >doesn't happen to be one of them. >> >> >> >> You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much >> >consideration >> >> as their deaths. >> > >> >You keep repeating that "their lives should be given consideration", that >is >> >the self-serving logic of the larder. It implies that we ought to >conclude >> >that we have done something morally admirable based simply on the fact >that >> >animals we exploit are alive. You go even further, you don't require, as >> >Singer does that we raise animals in an idyllic environment, you don't >even >> >require that we actually breed the animals ourselves, you think we ought >to >> >be congratulated for simply buying animal products. >> > >> >> Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are >> >> not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss. >> > >> >They aren't dead when they are killed, they're still alive. >> >> Things they suffer throughout their lives are sometimes more >disturbing >> to them than their deaths: >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> Reactions to the throat cut >> >> The variable of reactions to the incision must be separated from the >variable of >> the time required for the animal to become completely insensible. >Recordings of >> EEG or evoked potentials measure the time required for the animal to lose >> consciousness. They are not measures of pain. Careful observations of the >> animal's behavioural reactions to the cut are one of the best ways to >determine >> if cutting the throat without prior stunning is painful. The time required >for the >> animals to become unconscious will be discussed later. >> [...] >> Blood on the equipment did not appear to upset the cattle. They >voluntarily >> entered the box when the rear gate was opened. Some cattle licked the >blood. >> >> In all three restraint systems, the animals had little or no reaction to >the throat cut. >> There was a slight flinch when the blade first touched the throat. This >flinch was >> much less vigorous than an animal's reaction to an eartag punch. There was >no >> further reaction as the cut proceeded. Both carotids were severed in all >animals. >> Some animals in the modified ASPCA pen were held so loosely by the head >holder >> and rear pusher gate that they could have easily pulled away from the >knife. >> [...] >> http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> I'll never be convinced that such a death destroys any positive value >their >> lives have had. But of course you don't believe their lives have any >positive >> value at all, and their deaths are all you consider. >> >> >> If you think that instant >> >> that they die makes their whole lives not worth living, >> > >> >The instant they die they cease to be a liability and become "animal >> >products", hence they begin to have value to humans. In that sense, we >view >> >them as having negative value when they are alive (they consume >resources) >> >which should be a clue to you that we do not deserve moral credit for >those >> >lives. At no time in the process did the very fact that they are alive >> >qualify as a moral credit to those who raise them or demand those >products. >> >> You are consistent in your total lack of consideration for the >animals. > >You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a >credit for their lives. Well, that's sure a lie. >> The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to >> whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which >> some do and some don't. > >That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting >animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane >care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit and >some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant >something. It does mean something. If it didn't then you wouldn't have said: If you were advocating carefully selecting animal products derived from those animals that "benefit". The first step in that of course is to recognise that some do benefit. All that you "ARAs" want people to recognise is some do not. So I point out that some do and some do not, and then you "ARAs" oppose it being pointed out because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals. >> >> then you're in the same >> >> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason. >> > >> >The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position. >> >> We are all in the same position in regards to whether or not death >> makes life not worth having experienced. You feel that it does, regardless >> of quality of life, or the amount of suffering involved in death. I feel >that it >> depends on the particular situations. > >None of that is meaningful in this discussion, We're discussing whether or not life is worth living, and if so when and when not. Were you unaware of that? >you're off on a stupid >tangent. > |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
|
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a > >credit for their lives. > > Well, that's sure a lie. Show me one single statement where you have demonstrated any concern beyond this vague self-serving "consideration" thing you keep harping on. > >> The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to > >> whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which > >> some do and some don't. > > > >That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting > >animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane > >care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit and > >some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant > >something. > > It does mean something. If it didn't then you wouldn't have said: If you were > advocating carefully selecting animal products derived from those animals that > "benefit". The first step in that of course is to recognise that some do benefit. Some animals receive humane care, which beneifts them. That doesn't make their lives a benefit. > All that you "ARAs" want people to recognise is some do not. I'm not an ARA and I don't mind saying that some animals receive adequate care. > So I point out that > some do and some do not, That statement by itself means absolutely nothing. If you were saying that you choose only products from those that "benefit" from this humane care, that would have value. To say, "some do and some do not" is utterly vacant of any meaning. > and then you "ARAs" oppose it being pointed out > because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals. No, I oppose the use of sophistry to support it, especially the logic of the larder, a particularly disgusting form. > >> >> then you're in the same > >> >> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason. > >> > > >> >The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position. > >> > >> We are all in the same position in regards to whether or not death > >> makes life not worth having experienced. You feel that it does, regardless > >> of quality of life, or the amount of suffering involved in death. I feel > >that it > >> depends on the particular situations. > > > >None of that is meaningful in this discussion, > > We're discussing whether or not life is worth living, No, we are not. > and if so when and > when not. Were you unaware of that? I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some food animals live tolerable lives and some don't. I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider". Your "considering" is just so much ethical masturbation. > >you're off on a stupid > >tangent. That's true. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
Dutch wrote:
> > wrote > >>On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>>You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a >>>credit for their lives. >> >> Well, that's sure a lie. > > > Show me one single statement where you have demonstrated any concern beyond > this vague self-serving "consideration" thing you keep harping on. On the other hand, he has admitted he eats whatever beef he can get at the local supermarket. He's a liar: he shows no consideration for the conditions in which animals live at all. Remember, ****wit believes he is doing animals a good turn by causing them to "experience life". That's ALL the consideration the liar gives. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
****wit David Harrison ) wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to >>>whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which >>>some do and some don't. >> >>That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting >>animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane >>care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit and >>some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant >>something. > > > It does mean something. It doesn't. It doesn't mean a ****ing thing. > If it didn't then you wouldn't have said: If you were > advocating carefully selecting animal products derived from those animals that > "benefit". The first step in that of course is to recognise that some do benefit. NO animals "benefit" merely from being born, ****WIT. Not any. > All that you "ARAs" want people to recognise is some do not. I am not an "ara". Neither is Dutch. You know it. NO animals "benefit" from being born, ****WIT. > So I point out that some do and some do not, NONE do. Being born is not a 'benefit' to ANY animal. >>None of that is meaningful in this discussion, > > > We're discussing whether or not life is worth living, No, we are not. We are discussing whether being born is a "benefit" to animals. It isn't. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:40:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living, > >No, we are not. > >> and if so when and >> when not. Were you unaware of that? > >I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some food >animals live tolerable lives and some don't. > >I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider". You only want people to consider that some don't, and are extremely opposed to people considering that some do because it doesn't support the elimination of them. >Your >"considering" is just so much ethical masturbation. > >> >you're off on a stupid >> >tangent. > >That's true. > |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
****WIT David Harrison ) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:40:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > wrote > > >>> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living, >> >>No, we are not. >> >> >>>and if so when and >>>when not. Were you unaware of that? >> >>I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some food >>animals live tolerable lives and some don't. >> >>I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider". > > > You only want people to consider that some don't, NO animal 'benefits' from being born, ****WIT. None. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
> wrote
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:40:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > wrote > > >> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living, > > > >No, we are not. > > > >> and if so when and > >> when not. Were you unaware of that? > > > >I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some food > >animals live tolerable lives and some don't. > > > >I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider". > > You only want people to consider that some don't, That's right, because then something can be done about it, such as improving conditions, strengthening animal welfare laws, etc.. > and are extremely > opposed to people considering that some do There's no point considering (I hate that stupid word) *thinking about* the animals who live good lives because they're OK, there's not much more we need do for them. Therefore the only logical reason for it must be to engage in some sort of misplaced self-congratulation ritual. > because it doesn't support > the elimination of them. I obviously don't support elimination of them, as I eat meat, use animal products, and support essential animal research. Therefore it would seem your assessment of my motives is as faulty as the rest of your position. No, I oppose your "considering" shit, because it's just that, shit. It's self-serving ethical masturbation of the worst kind. It's at least as misguided as AR, perhaps more so. You've ensconced yourself in a real stickler of a catch-22, you can't admit to yourself that your love of the "logic of the larder" is shite because you'd lose face massively, so you are compelled to continue with it, and continue to be the mockery of everyone here. Too bad, oh well, at least you get to keep saying that some animals benefit and some don't, and thinking to yourself that we all just don't get it, that must be worth something.. What a Retard. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:40:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > wrote >> >> >> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living, >> > >> >No, we are not. >> > >> >> and if so when and >> >> when not. Were you unaware of that? >> > >> >I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some >food >> >animals live tolerable lives and some don't. >> > >> >I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider". >> >> You only want people to consider that some don't, > >That's right, because then something can be done about it, such as improving >conditions, strengthening animal welfare laws, etc.. > >> and are extremely >> opposed to people considering that some do > >There's no point considering (I hate that stupid word) *thinking about* the >animals who live good lives because they're OK, there's not much more we >need do for them. The point is to encourage interest in promoting more conditions like that, which you are aware of and extremely opposed to because it doesn't support the elimination of them. >Therefore the only logical reason for it must be to engage >in some sort of misplaced self-congratulation ritual. > >> because it doesn't support >> the elimination of them. > >I obviously don't support elimination of them, as I eat meat, use animal >products, and support essential animal research. Therefore it would seem >your assessment of my motives is as faulty as the rest of your position. > >No, I oppose your "considering" shit, because it's just that, shit. It's >self-serving ethical masturbation of the worst kind. It's at least as >misguided as AR, perhaps more so. You've ensconced yourself in a real >stickler of a catch-22, you can't admit to yourself that your love of the >"logic of the larder" is shite because you'd lose face massively, so you are >compelled to continue with it, and continue to be the mockery of everyone >here. > >Too bad, oh well, at least you get to keep saying that some animals benefit >and some don't, I can keep saying it as long as it remains a fact...and the fact that people like you don't like seeing it pointed out means that it's a good thing to continue to point out. >and thinking to yourself that we all just don't get it, that >must be worth something.. > >What a Retard. That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA". |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
swamp wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:27:20 GMT, wrote: > > >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>>What a Retard. >> >> That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't >>believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA". > > > Your ARA meter is as defective as your "benefit of life" argument. ****WIT doesn't believe Dutch, you or I are "aras". It's his Lyndon Larouche trick: Larouche calls anyone who disagrees with his fanatical platform a "drug-dealer", and ****WIT calls anyone who disagrees with any of his bullshit an "ara". |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:45:11 -0800, swamp > wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:27:20 GMT, wrote: > >>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>What a Retard. >> >> That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't >>believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA". > >Your ARA meter is as defective as your "benefit of life" argument. > >-- swamp Some farm animals benefit from farming and some don't. It's almost unbelievable that you are only aware of those which don't....in fact I don't believe it. |
|
|||
|
|||
No loss to the animals
wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:45:11 -0800, swamp > wrote: > > >>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:27:20 GMT, wrote: >> >> >>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>What a Retard. >>> >>> That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't >>>believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA". >> >>Your ARA meter is as defective as your "benefit of life" argument. >> >>-- swamp > > > Some farm animals benefit from farming and some don't. NO animal 'benefits' from being born, ****WIT. Admit it: your claim is bullshit. Swamp is correct: your 'ara' meter is defective, just like your braincell. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How producing ethical, zero-harm plant food for vegans and vegetarians kills more animals than, well, actually killing animals for the purpose of eating them. | General Cooking | |||
Why God created the Animals? | Vegan | |||
Natural weight loss tactics to lose weight forever and never gain itback. All the weight-loss secrets! | General Cooking | |||
PETS ANIMALS | General Cooking | |||
Animals do have rights | Vegan |