|
No need for farm animals.
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:59:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >You're wrong. He *does* know. I wouldn't just take your word for it. >Tell us about the wacky Hare Krishna cow farm, >Goofball-aka-"Jahnu". Why? We are discussing the harmful ways of meat production. If some Hare Krishna farm is having some troubles, does that justify the mass murder on innocent animals in the modern slaughter house culture? HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:59:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>You're wrong. He *does* know. > > > I wouldn't just take your word for it. > > >>Tell us about the wacky Hare Krishna cow farm, >>Goofball-aka-"Jahnu". > > > Why? We are discussing the harmful ways of meat production. No, JoeBob. We're discussing "vegan" hypocrisy. > If some > Hare Krishna farm is having some troubles, does that justify the mass > murder on innocent animals in the modern slaughter house culture? Why do the supposedly "vegan" Hare Krishna pseudo-religious phonies kill the male calves, JoeBob? |
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:42:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>Stuff your Krishna phony baloney up your ass. > > > Here is a lot of bullshit by A.D. Andrews You dodged the question, shitbag. How much rice do you eat? Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and die? |
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:22:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>Jahnu wrote: > > >>>Do you mean to say that there wouldn't be a difference if I smashed >>>your head with a shovel and squished a tomato? >> >>There's a huge difference. I have rights. > > > Do you mean to say that plants should have the same rights as animals? No, moron. Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and die, asshole? >>Answer the question: how much rice do you eat? > > > Why would I want to answer your lame questions? Answer the question, hypocrite: how much rice do you eat? Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and die, asshole? > > >>>Do you actually want me >>>to believe you don't distinguish between which living entity you kill? >>>Would it be the same to you to kill a pig as it would to harvest corn? >>>I don't believe you. In that case, watch out for the guys in white >>>coat. :) >> >>We're talking about animals, you fat ****: the animals >>whose death YOU cause by eating whatever it is you eat. > > > How do you figure that a vegetarian causes more animal deaths than a > meat eater, O wise one? I didn't say more than, ****wad. You cause animal death. Why do you do it? > > >> You cause the wanton death of animals. > > > But compared to the slaughter house culture No, we're not making that comparison, shitbag. We're trying to find out why you cause animal death, then sanctimoniously try to pretend you don't. Why do you cause animal death and suffering with your diet, shitbag? > > >>How much rice do you eat? Answer the question, now. > > > Hey, careful, you are gonna pop a circuit any time now. ;) Answer the question: how much rice do you eat? Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and die, asshole? |
No need for farm animals.
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message link.net... > Benfez wrote: > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>Benfez wrote: > >> > >> > >>>snip > >>> > >>>I presume you've run out of arguments now, so you just reprint some > >>>irrellavent article. > >>> > >>>Really, try and find out about how animals are kept, especially in the > > > > UK > > > >>>where welfare standards are generally accepted as being the highest on > > > > the > > > >>>planet. It may help you to understand that a short but high quality > > > > life is > > > >>>far superior to no life at all. > >> > >>No, it isn't, and you are a moron for suggesting it. > > > > > > That isn't a counter argument. > > It is. Your claim that "it" is "better" for an animal > to exist rather than never come into existence is false. > > > Explain to me how it is better to never exist > > than to exist happily for a period of time. > > Explain to me in what way it is "better" for an animal > to come into existence. > So we come full circle to the argument that you (Vegans) dont actually like animals at all and you would rather none existed in order that none had to die. Are you aware of the food chain, it is a concept where animals eat other animals. Perhaps we should go out to the Kalahari and slaughter (humanely of course) all the big cats in order that no wildebeest etc had to die! |
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:09:31 -0500, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > >> You are one severely deluded puppy. > >================== > >No, you just prefer to have your head buried. > > > HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER > > The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 > =========== Again, all you have are lys and delusional dishonset crap.. > snippage, again, of 'data' that has nothing to do with world hunger... |
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:37:14 -0500, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > >> >> Do you mean to say that there wouldn't be a difference if I smashed > >> >> your head with a shovel and squished a tomato? Do you actually want me > >> >> to believe you don't distinguish between which living entity you kill? > >> >> Would it be the same to you to kill a pig as it would to harvest corn? > >> >> I don't believe you. In that case, watch out for the guys in white > >> >> coat. :) > > >> I cite from the introduction to 'The Hare Krishna Book > >> of Vegetarian Cooking.' > >================ > >What's the maytter killer, can't answer the question? > > What question? ===================== The ones you keep snipping out, fool. > > "Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent > certain diseases? =============== No, end case.. snippage of crappola.... Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd f http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:35:44 -0500, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > >> Who said I believed that? > >===================== > >You keep ignoring it. Same thing. > > Ignoring what? =============== The bloody footprints you are tracking all over with your diet and lifestyle. Why is you continue to ignore the questions about that? Afraid to answer? Afterall, it is *you* that claims to care so much about animals, yet you continue to prove with each post that you care nothing about them. > > >Plus, you have dishonestly snipped out the references without comment, as > >usual.. > > I only snip the superfluous, mindless drivel, which means I have to > snip most of your posts away: =============== No, you snip out the facts that you cannot refute, and the data you cannot answer. Why is that killer? > > > HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER > > The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 --------------------------- You lose again, killer.... Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd f http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > "Benfez" > wrote in message ... > > > snip > > > It may help you to understand that a short but high > > > quality life is far superior to no life at all. > > > > > Thanks for that, Benfez. > > For what? Your claim was that "most meatarians" subscribe to this notion, > that's now two, out of billions. You're a little short of supporting your > claim.. > The original claim was that only Harrison believed a short life as a farm animal was better than no life at all. "There is exactly one person you've ever read in these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 But that obviously isn't the case. [This raises an additional problem with Davis's argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or preference-satisfaction in the world not only by increasing the happiness of existing animals, but also by increasing the total population of happy animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993). A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal, it is better to have two happy animals than one. *In the past, this view has been used to justify the consumption of meat, since farmed animals would not exist if not for meat production.* This argument, sometimes called "The Logic of the Larder" (Stephen 1896), is rebutted by recognizing that while a particular animal may have a life worth living, he or she may harm a number of other animals and/or prevent other animals from existing. In such cases, it may be better if that particular animal had not existed (Gruzalski 1989).] *my emphasis* http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm [What do they do which is cruel? They pen up animals which should be roaming free. This sounds much like all stock farming. When you farm cattle, you don't want them straying. As for the "should", well, *these animals wouldn't exist were it not for the fur farm,* surely, so who says what these animals "should" be doing? The reply is that fur farming is evil.] *my emphasis* http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.l...n/furfarm.html [If so, the consequence to others of buying that meat in the grocery store, rather than asparagus, is good; *you create farm animals whose lives are worth living.* And thus the consequence of buying asparagus rather than meat is, by comparison, bad. So if you, like me, think your actions are more moral when you do more good for others, you should agree with me that meat is moral, and veggies are immoral.] *my emphasis* http://hanson.gmu.edu/meat.html [start ipse dixit] >> >> You wrote that, "The deer benefit from >> >> the loss of predators, *first* because they >> >> are able to reproduce prodigiously...", so the >> >> benefits you're referring to are; >> >> 1) from living >> >> 2) from producing >> >> after we have removed their predators, so explain >> >> how. >> >> >> Well, Dutch? > >It's self-evident, you're an idiot. > Way to go ... [end] "Bar the herds that won't be bred any more." arachedeaux 1-1-2004 " It may help you to understand that a short but high quality life is far superior to no life at all." Benfez Date: 07 Jan 2004 I think most meatarians and fur wearers believe it to a certain extent, in one way or another. |
No need for farm animals.
Benfez wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>Benfez wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Benfez wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>snip >>>>> >>>>>I presume you've run out of arguments now, so you just reprint some >>>>>irrellavent article. >>>>> >>>>>Really, try and find out about how animals are kept, especially in the >>> >>>UK >>> >>> >>>>>where welfare standards are generally accepted as being the highest on >>> >>>the >>> >>> >>>>>planet. It may help you to understand that a short but high quality >>> >>>life is >>> >>> >>>>>far superior to no life at all. >>>> >>>>No, it isn't, and you are a moron for suggesting it. >>> >>> >>>That isn't a counter argument. >> >>It is. Your claim that "it" is "better" for an animal >>to exist rather than never come into existence is false. >> >> >>>Explain to me how it is better to never exist >>>than to exist happily for a period of time. >> >>Explain to me in what way it is "better" for an animal >>to come into existence. >> > > > So we come full circle to the argument that you (Vegans) dont actually like > animals at all No. I am not a "vegan", nor even a vegetarian. I eat meat and eggs and dairy, wear leather and wool, and believe in testing that uses animals. I believe our use of animals is morally acceptable. I'm normal. > and you would rather none existed in order that none had to die. No, you're wrong. I *definitely* want farm animals and pets and lab testing animals to exist. It doesn't bother me at all that animals die for meat or any other human purpose. You didn't answer the challenge; you whiffed off. Explain to me why it is "better" for an animal to come into existence. > Are you aware of the food chain, it is a concept where animals eat > other animals. Perhaps we should go out to the Kalahari and slaughter > (humanely of course) all the big cats in order that no wildebeest etc had to > die! > > |
No need for farm animals.
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message .net... > Benfez wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>Benfez wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > rthlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Benfez wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>snip > >>>>> > >>>>>I presume you've run out of arguments now, so you just reprint some > >>>>>irrellavent article. > >>>>> > >>>>>Really, try and find out about how animals are kept, especially in the > >>> > >>>UK > >>> > >>> > >>>>>where welfare standards are generally accepted as being the highest on > >>> > >>>the > >>> > >>> > >>>>>planet. It may help you to understand that a short but high quality > >>> > >>>life is > >>> > >>> > >>>>>far superior to no life at all. > >>>> > >>>>No, it isn't, and you are a moron for suggesting it. > >>> > >>> > >>>That isn't a counter argument. > >> > >>It is. Your claim that "it" is "better" for an animal > >>to exist rather than never come into existence is false. > >> > >> > >>>Explain to me how it is better to never exist > >>>than to exist happily for a period of time. > >> > >>Explain to me in what way it is "better" for an animal > >>to come into existence. > >> > > > > > > So we come full circle to the argument that you (Vegans) dont actually like > > animals at all > > No. I am not a "vegan", nor even a vegetarian. I eat > meat and eggs and dairy, wear leather and wool, and > believe in testing that uses animals. I believe our > use of animals is morally acceptable. I'm normal. > > > and you would rather none existed in order that none had to die. > > No, you're wrong. I *definitely* want farm animals and > pets and lab testing animals to exist. It doesn't > bother me at all that animals die for meat or any other > human purpose. > > You didn't answer the challenge; you whiffed off. > Explain to me why it is "better" for an animal to come > into existence. Fair enough. If there is no existance there can be no joy. I see animals enjoying themselves every day. It is essential to my way of life to give as much joy to the animals in my care as possible, their joy gives me joy. I know that even if I should die tomorrow I am happy for having existed - as the pleasure in my life far outweighs the pain. Thus my observation based on my own existance is that it is better to live a pleasurable life than not to have lived. I'm not a philosopher (obviously) but these are my opinions which I am happy with. There is a great deal of anger here, I only visited to try and understand the mind set of the vegans. My preconceptions were that vegans would be ageing hippies, impressionalble schoolgirls and probably a few spinsters. I realise I'm showing my ignorance here. However I am saddened to see the levels of hatred that exist in a group who profess to care for life. > > > Are you aware of the food chain, it is a concept where animals eat > > other animals. Perhaps we should go out to the Kalahari and slaughter > > (humanely of course) all the big cats in order that no wildebeest etc had to > > die! > > > > > |
No need for farm animals.
Benfez wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > .net... > >>You didn't answer the challenge; you whiffed off. >>Explain to me why it is "better" for an animal to come >>into existence. > > > Fair enough. > > If there is no existance there can be no joy. So what? There is no requirement that there be any animals (or any people, for that matter) experiencing joy. > I see animals enjoying themselves every day. You mean you *think* you do. You don't really know. In any case, once again: so what? Is this about you? > It is essential to my way of life to give as much joy > to the animals in my care as possible, their joy gives me joy. That's fine...as long as they exist. Go ahead and maximize the joy in their lives. It *still* is not a reason for them to exist. They are not better off merely for existing; rather, given that they exist, they are better of being cared for by you than by someone who is cruel to them or doesn't care about their welfare. Increasingly, it is clear that this is about YOU, not them. > I know that > even if I should die tomorrow I am happy for having existed - as the > pleasure in my life far outweighs the pain. The animals are *not* happier for having existed. They don't care that they exist. They don't even *know* that they exist, in the same metaphysical way that we know. That's the fundamental difference between us and them. Nothing you've written so far shows, in *any* way, that the animals are "better off" for existing rather than not. > Thus my observation based on my > own existance is that it is better to live a pleasurable life than not to > have lived. > > I'm not a philosopher (obviously) Yes, obviously. > but these are my opinions which I am happy with. It explains how *you* are better off because of the animals existing, not how they are better off. They aren't. In order for an entity to benefit (be better off), it MUST HAVE EXISTED prior to the event that you are claiming benefits it. Therefore, existence cannot initially be a benefit, by definition. Furthermore, on commonsense level, we probably want to restrict this idea of "being better off" to entities that have some experiential awareness of their welfare. Thus, we can talk about chickens being better off if they're allowed to move about a farmyard looking for grain instead of being confined to small cages, but we probably don't want to think that single-celled creatures or planaria can "benefit" in the same sense. > There is a great deal of anger here, I only visited to try and > understand the mind set of the vegans. My preconceptions were that vegans > would be ageing hippies, impressionalble schoolgirls and probably a few > spinsters. You are largely right, at least as far as North American "vegans" go. Among the British, the ranks of "vegans" are mainly populated by drunken blue-collar workers. > I realise I'm showing my ignorance here. However I am saddened > to see the levels of hatred that exist in a group who profess to care for > life. It's fine to care for living creatures, once they are alive. Just don't follow this goofy "logic of the larder" (do your own web search on that expression; you're looking for something written by a Henry Salt.) Causing animals to be born is not a proper moral justification for our use of them. |
No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball
"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > "Benfez" > wrote in message ... > > > > snip > > > > It may help you to understand that a short but high > > > > quality life is far superior to no life at all. > > > > > > > Thanks for that, Benfez. > > > > For what? Your claim was that "most meatarians" subscribe to this notion, > > that's now two, out of billions. You're a little short of supporting your > > claim.. > > > The original claim was that only Harrison believed > a short life as a farm animal was better than no life > at all. > > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 > > But that obviously isn't the case. That obviously wasn't the claim. He said "there is exactly one person *you've ever read in these newsgroups* who believes the "animals getting to experience life" crapola, " He didn't say there was only one person. Since the logic of the larder is thousands of years old it stands to reason there are a few people floating around who subscribe to the logic. You discovered *one* more. Your claim was that *most* "meatarians" believe it. You are 3 billion short of establishing your claim. > > [This raises an additional problem with Davis's > argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe > we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or > preference-satisfaction in the world not only by > increasing the happiness of existing animals, but > also by increasing the total population of happy > animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993). > A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal, > it is better to have two happy animals than one. Extreme utilitarians are almost as rare as adherents of the logic of the larder. > *In the past, this view has been used to justify the > consumption of meat, since farmed animals would > not exist if not for meat production.* "In the past.." -snip windy crap- > I think most meatarians and fur wearers believe it > to a certain extent, in one way or another. You think wrong, you're a reflexive wrong-thinking person. *If* there are going to be livestock, it is morally preferable that they live happy, contented, low-stress lives, *that* is what people believe, NOT that it's morally preferable to raise two cows rather than one. |
No need for farm animals.
Benfez wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > .net... > >>Benfez wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... >>> >> >>>>You didn't answer the challenge; you whiffed off. >>>>Explain to me why it is "better" for an animal to come >>>>into existence. >>> >>> >>>Fair enough. >>> >>>If there is no existance there can be no joy. >> >>So what? There is no requirement that there be any >>animals (or any people, for that matter) experiencing joy. > > > No there is no requirement, however I maintain that it is better that there > is joy than that there is none. Better for who? better for all those who > enjoy. You haven't been paying attention. An animal does not benefit - become better off - by virtue of coming into existence. If you believe it does, then you *necessarily* must believe that the animal was *worse* off prior to existing, and that is plainly absurd: the animal didn't exist prior to existing (duh), and therefore could not be worse off; one must exist in order to have an experiential welfare. > > >>>I see animals enjoying themselves every day. >> >>You mean you *think* you do. You don't really know. > > > No, I understand cattle better than anyone who I have ever met, not a boast, > just a fact. I know a great number of cattle breeders. I know when cattle > are happy. You don't know. You are projecting your values. > >>In any case, once again: so what? Is this about you? > > > Of course. Just as being a vegan is about the vegan and their choices. But your claim was that the *animals* are better off merely for coming into existence. That plainly is not the case; YOU are the one who is better off because THEY came into existence. > >>>It is essential to my way of life to give as much joy >>>to the animals in my care as possible, their joy gives me joy. >> >>That's fine...as long as they exist. Go ahead and >>maximize the joy in their lives. It *still* is not a >>reason for them to exist. > > > Quite, the reason that they exist is ultimately for our consumption. It - their experiential welfare - is not a valid moral reason for them to exist in the first place. > >> They are not better off >>merely for existing; rather, given that they exist, >>they are better of being cared for by you than by >>someone who is cruel to them or doesn't care about >>their welfare. >> >>Increasingly, it is clear that this is about YOU, not them. >> >> >>>I know that >>>even if I should die tomorrow I am happy for having existed - as the >>>pleasure in my life far outweighs the pain. >> >>The animals are *not* happier for having existed. They >>don't care that they exist. They don't even *know* >>that they exist, in the same metaphysical way that we >>know. > > > According to you, you dont know that. It's the smart bet. They don't give any evidence of knowing that they exist in a metaphysical sense, and they give quite a lot of evidence of *not* knowing it. Until someone can make a strong case that they know, the correct presumption is that they do not. > >> That's the fundamental difference between us and them. >> >>Nothing you've written so far shows, in *any* way, that >>the animals are "better off" for existing rather than not. >> >> >>>Thus my observation based on my >>>own existance is that it is better to live a pleasurable life than not >>>to have lived. >>> >>>I'm not a philosopher (obviously) >> >>Yes, obviously. >> >> >>>but these are my opinions which I am happy with. >> >>It explains how *you* are better off because of the >>animals existing, not how they are better off. They >>aren't. > > > Is this what they call existentialism? Not exactly, but it's related. > >>In order for an entity to benefit (be better off), it >>MUST HAVE EXISTED prior to the event that you are >>claiming benefits it. Therefore, existence cannot >>initially be a benefit, by definition. >> >>Furthermore, on a commonsense level, we probably want to >>restrict this idea of "being better off" to entities >>that have some experiential awareness of their welfare. >> Thus, we can talk about chickens being better off if >>they're allowed to move about a farmyard looking for >>grain instead of being confined to small cages, but we >>probably don't want to think that single-celled >>creatures or planaria can "benefit" in the same sense. >> >> >>>There is a great deal of anger here, I only visited to try and >>>understand the mind set of the vegans. My preconceptions were that vegans >>>would be ageing hippies, impressionalble schoolgirls and probably a few >>>spinsters. >> >>You are largely right, at least as far as North >>American "vegans" go. Among the British, the ranks of >>"vegans" are mainly populated by drunken blue-collar >>workers. >> >> >>>I realise I'm showing my ignorance here. However I am saddened >>>to see the levels of hatred that exist in a group who profess to care >>> for life. >> >>It's fine to care for living creatures, once they are >>alive. Just don't follow this goofy "logic of the >>larder" (do your own web search on that expression; >>you're looking for something written by a Henry Salt.) >> Causing animals to be born is not a proper moral >>justification for our use of them. >> > > Thankyou for your reasoning. You're welcome. |
No need for farm animals.
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message .net... > Benfez wrote: > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message > > .net... > > > > >>You didn't answer the challenge; you whiffed off. > >>Explain to me why it is "better" for an animal to come > >>into existence. > > > > > > Fair enough. > > > > If there is no existance there can be no joy. > > So what? There is no requirement that there be any > animals (or any people, for that matter) experiencing joy. No there is no requirement, however I maintain that it is better that there is joy than that there is none. Better for who? better for all those who enjoy. > > > I see animals enjoying themselves every day. > > You mean you *think* you do. You don't really know. No, I understand cattle better than anyone who I have ever met, not a boast, just a fact. I know a great number of cattle breeders. I know when cattle are happy. > > In any case, once again: so what? Is this about you? Of course. Just as being a vegan is about the vegan and their choices. > > > It is essential to my way of life to give as much joy > > to the animals in my care as possible, their joy gives me joy. > > That's fine...as long as they exist. Go ahead and > maximize the joy in their lives. It *still* is not a > reason for them to exist. Quite, the reason that they exist is ultimately for our consumption. They are not better off > merely for existing; rather, given that they exist, > they are better of being cared for by you than by > someone who is cruel to them or doesn't care about > their welfare. > > Increasingly, it is clear that this is about YOU, not them. > > > I know that > > even if I should die tomorrow I am happy for having existed - as the > > pleasure in my life far outweighs the pain. > > The animals are *not* happier for having existed. They > don't care that they exist. They don't even *know* > that they exist, in the same metaphysical way that we > know. According to you, you dont know that. That's the fundamental difference between us and > them. > > Nothing you've written so far shows, in *any* way, that > the animals are "better off" for existing rather than not. > > > Thus my observation based on my > > own existance is that it is better to live a pleasurable life than not to > > have lived. > > > > I'm not a philosopher (obviously) > > Yes, obviously. > > > but these are my opinions which I am happy with. > > It explains how *you* are better off because of the > animals existing, not how they are better off. They > aren't. Is this what they call existentialism? > > In order for an entity to benefit (be better off), it > MUST HAVE EXISTED prior to the event that you are > claiming benefits it. Therefore, existence cannot > initially be a benefit, by definition. > > Furthermore, on commonsense level, we probably want to > restrict this idea of "being better off" to entities > that have some experiential awareness of their welfare. > Thus, we can talk about chickens being better off if > they're allowed to move about a farmyard looking for > grain instead of being confined to small cages, but we > probably don't want to think that single-celled > creatures or planaria can "benefit" in the same sense. > > > There is a great deal of anger here, I only visited to try and > > understand the mind set of the vegans. My preconceptions were that vegans > > would be ageing hippies, impressionalble schoolgirls and probably a few > > spinsters. > > You are largely right, at least as far as North > American "vegans" go. Among the British, the ranks of > "vegans" are mainly populated by drunken blue-collar > workers. > > > I realise I'm showing my ignorance here. However I am saddened > > to see the levels of hatred that exist in a group who profess to care for > > life. > > It's fine to care for living creatures, once they are > alive. Just don't follow this goofy "logic of the > larder" (do your own web search on that expression; > you're looking for something written by a Henry Salt.) > Causing animals to be born is not a proper moral > justification for our use of them. > Thankyou for your reasoning. |
No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > > "Benfez" > wrote in message ... > > > > > snip > > > > > It may help you to understand that a short but high > > > > > quality life is far superior to no life at all. > > > > > > > > > Thanks for that, Benfez. > > > > > > For what? Your claim was that "most meatarians" > > > subscribe to this notion, that's now two, out of billions. > > > You're a little short of supporting your claim.. > > > > > The original claim was that only Harrison believed > > a short life as a farm animal was better than no life > > at all. > > > > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in > > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting > > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore > > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the > > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." > > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 > > > > But that obviously isn't the case. > > That obviously wasn't the claim. It certainly is, and I've produced it here from Google archives with the date Jon wrote it. > > > > [This raises an additional problem with Davis's > > argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe > > we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or > > preference-satisfaction in the world not only by > > increasing the happiness of existing animals, but > > also by increasing the total population of happy > > animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993). > > A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal, > > it is better to have two happy animals than one. > > Extreme utilitarians are almost as rare as adherents of the logic of the > larder. > Ipse dixit. > > *In the past, this view has been used to justify the > > consumption of meat, since farmed animals would > > not exist if not for meat production.* > > "In the past.." > "We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It is quite possible that fools may be repeating it two thousand years hence." http://tinyurl.com/fljd He's dead right! > -snip windy crap- > Evidence which proves Jon's claim to be wrong, more like. tch tch |
No need for farm animals.
snip > > No there is no requirement, however I maintain that it is better that there > > is joy than that there is none. Better for who? better for all those who > > enjoy. > > You haven't been paying attention. An animal does not > benefit - become better off - by virtue of coming into > existence. If you believe it does, then you > *necessarily* must believe that the animal was *worse* > off prior to existing, and that is plainly absurd: the > animal didn't exist prior to existing (duh), and > therefore could not be worse off; one must exist in > order to have an experiential welfare. > I love this statement. If joy was to measured on a scale of 1 - 10. There would be no joy prior to existance, after the animal came into existance and joy was experienced a number could be attributed, say 10. Thus there is more joy after than before. > > > > > >>>I see animals enjoying themselves every day. > >> > >>You mean you *think* you do. You don't really know. > > > > > > No, I understand cattle better than anyone who I have ever met, not a boast, > > just a fact. I know a great number of cattle breeders. I know when cattle > > are happy. > > You don't know. You are projecting your values. Yes that is true, equally I do not know that the sun came up this morning. However I believe it to be true and all the evidence I have available demonstrates that that is the case. > > > > >>In any case, once again: so what? Is this about you? > > > > > > Of course. Just as being a vegan is about the vegan and their choices. > > But your claim was that the *animals* are better off > merely for coming into existence. That plainly is not > the case; YOU are the one who is better off because > THEY came into existence. Equally then, they are better off because I came into existance. > > > > >>>It is essential to my way of life to give as much joy > >>>to the animals in my care as possible, their joy gives me joy. > >> > >>That's fine...as long as they exist. Go ahead and > >>maximize the joy in their lives. It *still* is not a > >>reason for them to exist. > > > > > > Quite, the reason that they exist is ultimately for our consumption. > > It - their experiential welfare - is not a valid moral > reason for them to exist in the first place. > > > > >> They are not better off > >>merely for existing; rather, given that they exist, > >>they are better of being cared for by you than by > >>someone who is cruel to them or doesn't care about > >>their welfare. > >> > >>Increasingly, it is clear that this is about YOU, not them. > >> > >> > >>>I know that > >>>even if I should die tomorrow I am happy for having existed - as the > >>>pleasure in my life far outweighs the pain. > >> > >>The animals are *not* happier for having existed. They > >>don't care that they exist. They don't even *know* > >>that they exist, in the same metaphysical way that we > >>know. > > > > > > According to you, you dont know that. > > It's the smart bet. They don't give any evidence of > knowing that they exist in a metaphysical sense, and > they give quite a lot of evidence of *not* knowing it. > Until someone can make a strong case that they know, > the correct presumption is that they do not. What evidence do you need? > > > > >> That's the fundamental difference between us and them. > >> > >>Nothing you've written so far shows, in *any* way, that > >>the animals are "better off" for existing rather than not. > >> > >> > >>>Thus my observation based on my > >>>own existance is that it is better to live a pleasurable life than not > >>>to have lived. > >>> > >>>I'm not a philosopher (obviously) > >> > >>Yes, obviously. > >> > >> > >>>but these are my opinions which I am happy with. > >> > >>It explains how *you* are better off because of the > >>animals existing, not how they are better off. They > >>aren't. > > > > > > Is this what they call existentialism? > > Not exactly, but it's related. > snip again |
No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball
"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > > > "Benfez" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > snip > > > > > > It may help you to understand that a short but high > > > > > > quality life is far superior to no life at all. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for that, Benfez. > > > > > > > > For what? Your claim was that "most meatarians" > > > > subscribe to this notion, that's now two, out of billions. > > > > You're a little short of supporting your claim.. > > > > > > > The original claim was that only Harrison believed > > > a short life as a farm animal was better than no life > > > at all. > > > > > > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in > > > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting > > > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore > > > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the > > > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." > > > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 > > > > > > But that obviously isn't the case. > > > > That obviously wasn't the claim. > > It certainly is, and I've produced it here from > Google archives with the date Jon wrote it. Yes, and misinterperted it, probably deliberately. Read my response again, this time for comprehension. > > > > > > [This raises an additional problem with Davis's > > > argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe > > > we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or > > > preference-satisfaction in the world not only by > > > increasing the happiness of existing animals, but > > > also by increasing the total population of happy > > > animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993). > > > A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal, > > > it is better to have two happy animals than one. > > > > Extreme utilitarians are almost as rare as adherents of the logic of the > > larder. > > > Ipse dixit. Name one that has posted on any of these groups in the past three years. > > > > *In the past, this view has been used to justify the > > > consumption of meat, since farmed animals would > > > not exist if not for meat production.* > > > > "In the past.." > > > "We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was > clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It is > quite possible that fools may be repeating it two > thousand years hence." > http://tinyurl.com/fljd > > He's dead right! > > > -snip windy crap- > > > Evidence which proves Jon's claim to be wrong, > more like. tch tch His claim was correct. Your strawman is wrong. |
No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > "Benfez" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > It may help you to understand that a short but high > > > > > > > quality life is far superior to no life at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for that, Benfez. > > > > > > > > > > For what? Your claim was that "most meatarians" > > > > > subscribe to this notion, that's now two, out of billions. > > > > > You're a little short of supporting your claim.. > > > > > > > > > The original claim was that only Harrison believed > > > > a short life as a farm animal was better than no life > > > > at all. > > > > > > > > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in > > > > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting > > > > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore > > > > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the > > > > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." > > > > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 > > > > > > > > But that obviously isn't the case. > > > > > > That obviously wasn't the claim. > > > > It certainly is, and I've produced it here from > > Google archives with the date Jon wrote it. > > Yes And that is all, stupid. > > > > > > > > [This raises an additional problem with Davis's > > > > argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe > > > > we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or > > > > preference-satisfaction in the world not only by > > > > increasing the happiness of existing animals, but > > > > also by increasing the total population of happy > > > > animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993). > > > > A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal, > > > > it is better to have two happy animals than one. > > > > > > Extreme utilitarians are almost as rare as adherents of the logic of the > > > larder. > > > > > Ipse dixit. > > Name one that has posted on any of these groups in the past three years. > That's a goalpost move from "Extreme utilitarians" to "Extremem utilitarians" who've posted here in the past three years. > > > > > > *In the past, this view has been used to justify the > > > > consumption of meat, since farmed animals would > > > > not exist if not for meat production.* > > > > > > "In the past.." > > > > > "We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was > > clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It is > > quite possible that fools may be repeating it two > > thousand years hence." > > http://tinyurl.com/fljd > > > > He's dead right! > > heh heh heh > > > -snip windy crap- > > > > > Evidence which proves Jon's claim to be wrong, > > more like. tch tch > > His claim was correct. Obviously not, you moron, since Jon claimed only Harrison believed in it. You are stupid. "There is exactly one person you've ever read in these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 He's clearly wrong. |
No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball
"ipse dixit" > wrote the same old bullshit
You lost as usual, you career ****-up, admit it. |
No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball
"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > > "Benfez" > wrote in message ... > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > It may help you to understand that a short but high > > > > > > > > quality life is far superior to no life at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for that, Benfez. > > > > > > > > > > > > For what? Your claim was that "most meatarians" > > > > > > subscribe to this notion, that's now two, out of billions. > > > > > > You're a little short of supporting your claim.. > > > > > > > > > > > The original claim was that only Harrison believed > > > > > a short life as a farm animal was better than no life > > > > > at all. > > > > > > > > > > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in > > > > > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting > > > > > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore > > > > > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the > > > > > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." > > > > > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 > > > > > > > > > > But that obviously isn't the case. > > > > > > > > That obviously wasn't the claim. > > > > > > It certainly is, and I've produced it here from > > > Google archives with the date Jon wrote it. > > > > Yes, and misinterperted it, probably deliberately. Read my response again, this time for comprehension. > > And that is all, stupid. Yes, you certainly are stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > [This raises an additional problem with Davis's > > > > > argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe > > > > > we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or > > > > > preference-satisfaction in the world not only by > > > > > increasing the happiness of existing animals, but > > > > > also by increasing the total population of happy > > > > > animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993). > > > > > A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal, > > > > > it is better to have two happy animals than one. > > > > > > > > Extreme utilitarians are almost as rare as adherents of the logic of the > > > > larder. > > > > > > > Ipse dixit. > > > > Name one that has posted on any of these groups in the past three years. > > > That's a goalpost move from "Extreme utilitarians" to > "Extremem utilitarians" who've posted here in the > past three years. Can't name one, I thought not. > > > > > > > > *In the past, this view has been used to justify the > > > > > consumption of meat, since farmed animals would > > > > > not exist if not for meat production.* > > > > > > > > "In the past.." > > > > > > > "We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was > > > clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It is > > > quite possible that fools may be repeating it two > > > thousand years hence." > > > http://tinyurl.com/fljd > > > > > > He's dead right! > > > > heh heh heh > > > > > -snip windy crap- > > > > > > > Evidence which proves Jon's claim to be wrong, > > > more like. tch tch > > > > His claim was correct. > > Obviously not, you moron, since Jon claimed > only Harrison believed in it. You are stupid. Read what he said again shit-for-brains. > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 > > He's clearly wrong. No, he was correct, at the time that was written 2003-06-25 the Benfez character had not yet emerged. You're really way too stupid to be here, and you aren't getting any better. |
No need for farm animals.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:19:54 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message >> HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER >> >> The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 >> =========== >Again, all you have are lys and delusional dishonset crap.. Why do you think the NY Times lies about it? Why would they do that? Their statistics are based on raw facts. Why do you think they are lies? Do you have any reasons or are you going to, like, postulate me to death? www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:25:25 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message .. . >> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:35:44 -0500, "rick etter" >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >"Jahnu" > wrote in message >> >> >> Who said I believed that? >> >===================== >> >You keep ignoring it. Same thing. >> >> Ignoring what? >=============== >The bloody footprints you are tracking all over with your diet and >lifestyle. How do you figure that? >Why is you continue to ignore the questions about that? About what? How do I track bloody footprints all over by my vegetarian lifestyle? I'm really interested to hear your reasoning. >Afraid to answer? Answer what? You haven't asked me anything except, do I eat rice? > Afterall, it is *you* that claims to care so much about >animals, yet you continue to prove with each post that you care nothing >about them. How do you figure that, taking into consideration that it's me defending animals and nature against such as the likes of you and the rest of the slaughter house culture? Just see how they not only slaughter cows, they have slaughtered your mind, too. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:18:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >>>Stuff your Krishna phony baloney up your ass. >You dodged the question, shitbag. How much rice do you >eat? > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and >die? How do I do that? I don't understand what you mean. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:22:35 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >Jahnu wrote: >> Do you mean to say that plants should have the same rights as animals? > >No, moron. > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and >die, asshole? Dear Editor Last week's headlines have brought alarming news about the sorry state of our public and planetary health. The USDA has forced the recall of 25 million pounds of hamburger meat that may be contaminated with deadly E. coli bacteria and the closure of the offending plant. Excessive use of antibiotics in raising farm animals and in medical practice has forged a Staphylococcus bacterium that is immune to all these drugs. Effluents from farm animal waste have nurtured toxic algae that have killed billions of fish and devastated fisheries throughout the eastern seaboard, from Delaware to Louisiana. Cornell University Professor David Pimentel told a national animal science meeting that our soil, water, and energy resources can not sustain current levels of animal agriculture. The Worldwatch Institute has warned that world grain production is falling behind meat consumption, leading to higher grain and meat prices and widespread famines in developing countries. Surely, the time has come for consumers to see the handwriting on the wall and to adopt a plant-based diet advocated by leading health and environmental authorities for the past 25 years. Sincerely, 1997 Maynard S. Clark P. O. Box 38-1068, Cambridge, MA 02238-1068 617-625-3790 (Voice) 617-357-2064 (Facsimile) www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:22:21 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote: > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message >> What question? >===================== >The ones you keep snipping out, fool. I snip them because they are mindless and have nothing to do with the fact that it is a grossly harmful practice to mother nature to slaughter her children like it is done in the modern cocacola and slaughterhouse culture. Two-year delay in BSE tests on milk November 15, 2002 DAILY MAIL (London) by Sean Poulter SCIENTISTS have not developed tests to find out if cows with BSE can pass on the disease to humans through their milk, despite being ordered to do so two years ago. The hold-up emerged yesterday when it was also revealed that the research is unlikely to start until next summer. Final results into possible links with 'mad cow disease' will not be known until 2004 at the earliest. The issue is urgent because milk from older cows those over 30 months which are more likely to have the disease is sold at thousands of supermarkets and corner shops. Any suggestion that milk could carry the BSE infectivity now or when the cattle epidemic was at its height in the 1990s will horrify millions of shoppers. Government BSE experts believe there is a theoretical risk the rogue prion or protein linked to the infection can be passed on through milk. But 13 years after the disease was first identified, official advisers admitted yesterday they are still in the dark about the threat. Families who have lost loved ones to the human form of BSE last night condemned the delays in investigating a link with milk. Frances Hall, whose son Peter died in 1996, said: 'BSE was discovered in cattle in 1989 but we are still in the dark about whether it was or is in milk. 'This is taking an awfully long time. These experiments should have started ten years ago. If they had, we might now have a definite answer. 'Everyone, including vegetarians, has gone on drinking milk and using milk products with the assurance there was no infectivity. If they now say there is something there, there will be an awful lot of angry people. It is a horrifying thought.' The Government's previous advice has always been that milk is safe, based on experiments with mice. However, there are concerns that these tests were flawed and not sensitive enough to detect transfer of the disease. The delays in examining any link with milk were revealed at a meeting of the Government's expert committee, SEAC. Members called for research more than two years ago but experts appointed by the Food Standards Agency have still not devised valid tests. SEAC chairman, Professor Peter Smith, admitted: 'There is still a question on milk because we don't have definitive tests. 'We do not even have the test for BSE in blood. There is a deficiency in the science here.' He said there was 'no doubt' the proposed experiments on milk could have started earlier. 'But the technology is evolving and the ability to pick up very low levels of the infective agent has improved enormously,' added the professor. He stressed that, even if the BSE prion is in milk, there is no certainty this would cause the disease in humans. The FSA said that the science to detect the disease was advancing all the time and denied any unnecessary hold-up. But one of the three panel members of the national inquiry into BSE has previously criticised delays in demonstrating the safety or otherwise of milk. Professor Malcolm Ferguson-Smith, from Cambridge University, said: 'It is astonishing this research has not been done.' It also emerged yesterday that the spread of human BSE may have peaked in 2000. So far, 129 Britons, mainly young adults, have contracted the disease. http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/mi8lk111502.cfm www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:59:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >Jahnu wrote: >> Why? We are discussing the harmful ways of meat production. > >No, JoeBob. We're discussing "vegan" hypocrisy. I am not discussing that, since I'm not a vegan. Did you really miss the point all that time? >> If some >> Hare Krishna farm is having some troubles, does that justify the mass >> murder on innocent animals in the modern slaughter house culture? > >Why do the supposedly "vegan" Hare Krishna >pseudo-religious phonies kill the male calves, JoeBob? The Hare Krishnas are not vegan, they are lacto-vegetarian, and if they killed some cows on one of their many, many farms all over the world where they protect the cows and let them live out their natural lifespan, I'm sure they must have had good reasons, because it is not something a Hare Krishna would normally do. So now that this is in the clear can you we then hear from you, why you support the slaughter of animals in automated slaughter houses, when, as you can see below, it's certifiably bad for mother nature and her inhabitants? HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is 'normal': over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S: slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:18:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>>>Stuff your Krishna phony baloney up your ass. > > >>You dodged the question, shitbag. How much rice do you >>eat? Answer the question, shitbag: how much rice do you eat? >> >>Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and >>die? > > > How do I do that? I don't understand what you mean. You do know. You're trying to dodge, but you're failing. You ****ing PHONY. You self consciously adopt this BULLSHIT "krishna" sack-o-shit, and it's completely PHONY. You're gutless. |
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:22:35 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>Jahnu wrote: > > >>>Do you mean to say that plants should have the same rights as animals? >> >>No, moron. >> >>Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and >>die, asshole? > > > Dear Editor Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and die, asshole? |
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:59:29 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>Jahnu wrote: > > >>>Why? We are discussing the harmful ways of meat production. >> >>No, JoeBob. We're discussing "vegan" hypocrisy. > > > I am not discussing that, since I'm not a vegan. Did you really miss > the point all that time? Your vegetarianism, whatever the **** you pompously call it, is clearly motivated by supposed "ethical" considerations. That makes you philosophically a "vegan", whether or not you use the term. It also makes you a massive, loathsome hypocrite. You're also a shitsmeared coward. |
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:25:25 -0500, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:35:44 -0500, "rick etter" > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > >> > >> >> Who said I believed that? > >> >===================== > >> >You keep ignoring it. Same thing. > >> > >> Ignoring what? > >=============== > >The bloody footprints you are tracking all over with your diet and > >lifestyle. > > How do you figure that? =================== Read the data you ignoraqnt fool. Or can't you do that? What with all the cut-n-paste you do, you probably don't read that well. > > >Why is you continue to ignore the questions about that? > > About what? How do I track bloody footprints all over by my vegetarian > lifestyle? I'm really interested to hear your reasoning. ====================== You've already heard it fool, and you keep deleting the data. Why is that? Afraid of what it says? > > >Afraid to answer? > > Answer what? You haven't asked me anything except, do I eat rice? ========== No stupid. Your comprehension is really terrible, you know that? I never asked yo about rice. > > > Afterall, it is *you* that claims to care so much about > >animals, yet you continue to prove with each post that you care nothing > >about them. > > How do you figure that, taking into consideration that it's me > defending animals and nature against such as the likes of you and the > rest of the slaughter house culture? ============================ Because fool, you rant only about what you think others are doing and fail to take any inventory of your own deadly lifestyle. Of course, it is easier to focus your hate on somebody else than to really do anything to change your bloody footprints. Just see how they not only > slaughter cows, they have slaughtered your mind, too. =============== ou're the only one here that doesn't have a brain worth mentioning, killer. Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd f http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:18:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>>Stuff your Krishna phony baloney up your ass. > > >You dodged the question, shitbag. How much rice do you > >eat? > > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and > >die? > > How do I do that? I don't understand what you mean. ================== Ignorance is bliss, eh killer? |
No need for farm animals.
"Jahnu" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:22:21 -0500, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > > >"Jahnu" > wrote in message > > >> What question? > >===================== > >The ones you keep snipping out, fool. > > I snip them because they are mindless and have nothing to do with the > fact that it is a grossly harmful practice to mother nature to > slaughter her children like it is done in the modern cocacola and > slaughterhouse culture. ====================== ROTFLMAO There from educational and gov sites fool. They are far more relevent than the propaganda you spew. The problem is that they show you for what you are. A mindless robot brainwashed into thinking meat is bad, veggies are good regardless of type of each. It's a simple rule for simple minds, and boy do you fill that category... > > > Two-year delay in BSE tests on milk snippage again of cut-n-paste spew that has nothing to do with you answering the questions and claims about *your* diet. Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd f http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote: -- <snip> First: Learn how to <snip> unrelated material from your posts. Not doing so shows your level of intelligence. Second: For those whom have the false belief that all ground is tillable. Go for the Darwin Award. You will so be getting it if you would try to farm that way. Of what is called tillable on my place only 30 percent could be placed in such, and that in a rotation which 2/5 would be plants only used by animals. beans-corn-wheat-clover-clover That is the short rotation. To do otherwise is both economically and environmently unwise. Thus to declare that there is no need for farm amimals is to declare that you are a rapist. For that is what would happen to the soil. Just wash down stream to fill in the sea. ----- "The law may permit what honor does not." -John Deacon ----- Sincerely Michael Sallee Vice President Dalmatian Data PC Consultants Owner/Manager Chautauqua Park Farms Brought to you by the letters O and S and the number 2 |
No need for farm animals. (more logic of the larder) Attn. Jonathan Ball
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "ipse dixit" > wrote the same old bullshit > > You lost as usual, you career ****-up, admit it. > Your snipping and running from threads you've lost out on is a joke, Ditch. The original claim was that only Harrison believed a short life as a farm animal was better than no life at all. "There is exactly one person you've ever read in these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit." Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25 But that obviously isn't the case. [This raises an additional problem with Davis's argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or preference-satisfaction in the world not only by increasing the happiness of existing animals, but also by increasing the total population of happy animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993). A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal, it is better to have two happy animals than one. *In the past, this view has been used to justify the consumption of meat, since farmed animals would not exist if not for meat production.* This argument, sometimes called "The Logic of the Larder" (Stephen 1896), is rebutted by recognizing that while a particular animal may have a life worth living, he or she may harm a number of other animals and/or prevent other animals from existing. In such cases, it may be better if that particular animal had not existed (Gruzalski 1989).] *my emphasis* http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm [What do they do which is cruel? They pen up animals which should be roaming free. This sounds much like all stock farming. When you farm cattle, you don't want them straying. As for the "should", well, *these animals wouldn't exist were it not for the fur farm,* surely, so who says what these animals "should" be doing? The reply is that fur farming is evil.] *my emphasis* http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.l...n/furfarm.html [If so, the consequence to others of buying that meat in the grocery store, rather than asparagus, is good; *you create farm animals whose lives are worth living.* And thus the consequence of buying asparagus rather than meat is, by comparison, bad. So if you, like me, think your actions are more moral when you do more good for others, you should agree with me that meat is moral, and veggies are immoral.] *my emphasis* http://hanson.gmu.edu/meat.html [start ipse dixit] >> >> You wrote that, "The deer benefit from >> >> the loss of predators, *first* because they >> >> are able to reproduce prodigiously...", so the >> >> benefits you're referring to are; >> >> 1) from living >> >> 2) from producing >> >> after we have removed their predators, so explain >> >> how. >> >> >> Well, Dutch? > >It's self-evident, you're an idiot. > Way to go ... [end] "Bar the herds that won't be bred any more." arachedeaux 1-1-2004 " It may help you to understand that a short but high quality life is far superior to no life at all." Benfez Date: 07 Jan 2004 I think most meatarians and fur wearers believe it to a certain extent, in one way or another. |
No need for farm animals.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:21 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >>>>>Stuff your Krishna phony baloney up your ass. >> >> >>>You dodged the question, shitbag. How much rice do you >>>eat? > >Answer the question, shitbag: how much rice do you eat? > >>> >>>Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and >>>die? >> >> >> How do I do that? I don't understand what you mean. > >You do know. You're trying to dodge, but you're failing. I don't understand what you mean when you say my vegetarian lifestyle causes animals to suffer and die. Can you explain to me the logistics behind it, then I would be very grateful, thank you. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and >die, asshole? I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater ;) www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:43:30 -0000, "Benfez"
> wrote: > >"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message >Fair enough. > >If there is no existance there can be no joy. I see animals enjoying >themselves every day. It is essential to my way of life to give as much joy >to the animals in my care as possible, their joy gives me joy. Why do you then slaughter the animals. Is that yout way of giving joy to them? Why do you fatten them up for slaughter? Is that your idea of joy to the animals? >I know that >even if I should die tomorrow I am happy for having existed - as the >pleasure in my life far outweighs the pain. Thus my observation based on my >own existance is that it is better to live a pleasurable life than not to >have lived. But what if you live a miserable life, where the miseries outweighs the pleasure? What then? Do you think that factory animals live a life where their pleasure outweighs their misery? >I'm not a philosopher (obviously) but these are my opinions which I am happy >with. There is a great deal of anger here, I only visited to try and >understand the mind set of the vegans. My preconceptions were that vegans >would be ageing hippies, impressionalble schoolgirls and probably a few >spinsters. I realise I'm showing my ignorance here. However I am saddened >to see the levels of hatred that exist in a group who profess to care for >life. Do you really want me to collect all the responses from the meat-eaters here and show you where the hatred and intolerance come from? www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
No need for farm animals.
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:52:46 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >You haven't been paying attention. An animal does not >benefit - become better off - by virtue of coming into >existence. If you believe it does, then you >*necessarily* must believe that the animal was *worse* >off prior to existing, and that is plainly absurd: the >animal didn't exist prior to existing (duh), and >therefore could not be worse off; one must exist in >order to have an experiential welfare. <snip> I have to say that I was impressed by the many good points you made in this text. Are you schitzophrenic? Aren't you same guy who goes, 'answer the question asshole, how much rice do you eat?' www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter