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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2004, 06:49 PM
JethroUKę
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

and more
precisely to oppose your view


In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.


i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view - actually
i'm playing devil's advocate since you seem to be on some sort of mission to
stuff your own 'opinion' (not a fact in sight) down everyones throat - now i
know what that is - i will discredit it (as fact) - then maybe you will
realise, it [only] your opinion - and that's all it is



  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2004, 07:00 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUKę wrote:

and more
precisely to oppose your view


In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.



i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view


Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
****tard: you are incompetent.

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-05-2004, 09:43 PM
JethroUKę
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
nk.net...
JethroUKę wrote:

and more
precisely to oppose your view

In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.



i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view


Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
****tard: you are incompetent.


Haven't lied once - You 'believe' eating animals is wrong - there is an
argument that is insurmountable - 'if meat eater didn't animals, they
wouldn't be there anyhow' - which leaves you with a rather hollow -
'breeding animals for consumption is morally wrong' - it's [your] opinion -
dont try to make a fact about it - you cannot [prove] someone's opinion is
wrong

"opinions are like assholes - we alllll got one - dirty harry"


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-05-2004, 06:55 AM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUKę wrote:
"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
nk.net...

JethroUKę wrote:


and more
precisely to oppose your view

In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.



i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view


Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
****tard: you are incompetent.



Haven't lied once


You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.

- You 'believe' eating animals is wrong


That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
do NOT believe eating animals is wrong. I am a meat
eater; dairy, too. I wear leather and wool. I consume
animals.

- there is an
argument that is insurmountable


It isn't my argument, whatever your rubbish is.

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-05-2004, 07:29 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:55:09 GMT, Wilson Woods wrote:

JethroUKę wrote:
"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
nk.net...

JethroUKę wrote:


and more
precisely to oppose your view

In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.



i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view

Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
****tard: you are incompetent.



Haven't lied once


You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.

- You 'believe' eating animals is wrong


That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.


Yes you do Gonad. You believe that their
lives mean nothing, but their deaths are very
significant. You have no opposition to "AR",
and have tried to promote its accetance
many times:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
Message-ID: .net
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:19:18 GMT

the "getting to experience
life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given
none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan
Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»
__________________________________________________ _______
09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.

11 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
So far, the "debate" (huh!) has been David reposting his
observation - that billions of animals will not get to
experience life - and me pointing out that this is of no
moral importance

19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration

02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be
no moral loss

2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.

27 Jan 2002 by Jonathan Ball
his basic rationale for opposing "animal rights" and
"vegans" is nonsense (that it prevents animals from
"getting to experience life")

02 Oct 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If there is no moral loss, which he coyly has hinted at
before, then he has no grounds for bashing "vegans" for
wanting domestic farm animals to disappear

27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If they never live in the first place, there is no moral
loss to humans, animals or the universe.

05 Sep 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If no farm animals are born...then so be it. There's no
moral loss.

04 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
I said that their experiencing of life is of no moral
significance: if domestic animals were to go extinct,
there would be no moral loss

01 Aug 2001 by Jonathan Ball
You don't have any way of measuring the psychic value
to the cow of the welfare improvement. You only know
that *you* feel better about it

13 Nov 2000 by Jonathan Ball
"they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]

28 Mar 2002 by Jonathan Ball
It doesn't matter if the animals know our intent, ****wit.
We know it.

30 Apr 2002 by Jonathan Ball
The fact they're going to be killed "anyway" is an enormous
factor in the quality of their lives

22 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Meat eaters promote life for the animals they eat,


No, they don't.

From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:22:55 -0700
wrote:

...they aren't simply "killed". Some of those animals
have decent lives, and others don't. Those are facts which veg*ns/"ARAs",
and at least some of their supposed opponents, want to disregard when making
their ethical evaluation of our relationship with animals.


No, ****wit. It is a "fact" that has no moral
importance, and need be given no consideration in
making a moral judgment about humans' relationship with
and use of animals.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»
I am a meat
eater;


You are a liar--there is no question about
that--and I believe you are lying when you say
you eat meat.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-05-2004, 04:45 PM
JethroUKę
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
k.net...
JethroUKę wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
k.net...

JethroUKę wrote:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
link.net...


JethroUKę wrote:



"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
hlink.net...



the semi-literate JethroUKę scrawled:




"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
rthlink.net...




JethroUKę wrote:





It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
"gets to exist".


yes it is

No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.



yes it is

It doesn't appear to be. I don't think you could
express coherent thoughts in any language.



you mean you've 'read' somewhere that it isn't

No, I am merely going by your severely impaired
articulation in English. It would appear that English
is not your native tongue. It doesn't merely appear,
it is a FACT that you are an uneducated twit who has no
business whatever trying to discuss philosophy. Your
opinions are ignornant and uninformed. No matter what
your native tongue, you cannot express coherent thoughts.



say you

Correctly, and with much support.



i eat - therfor i breed cows - everyones is 'better' off for it


Not the cattle. This has been explained to you a few
dozen times in plain English. I don't know what your
problem is. Perhaps you were dropped onto your head a
few times as an infant.


yes - they are better off, because they have a life which they didn't have
before (i decided to eat them)

no disecting of words will change that plain ol inference - you can argue
that is morally wrong - but you cant stop it being a fact


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-05-2004, 05:10 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:55:09 GMT, Wilson Woods wrote:


JethroUKę wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
hlink.net...


JethroUKę wrote:



and more
precisely to oppose your view

In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.



i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view

Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
****tard: you are incompetent.



Haven't lied once


You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.


- You 'believe' eating animals is wrong


That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.



Yes you do.


No, I don't, ****wit. You're just wrong.

You believe that their
lives mean nothing,


Irrelevant. Their lives DON'T mean anything, at least
not in the ****witted, WRONG way you believe they do.
That is EXACTLY one of the reasons I don't believe
eating them is wrong. How *could* it be wrong, if
their lives don't mean anything.

but their deaths are very significant.


No. I do not consider their deaths of any particular
significance. "aras" do, but I'm not an "ara", as you
have always known.

You have no opposition to "AR",


False. I am strenuously and unalterably opposed to
"ar", as you have ALWAYS known.

and have tried to promote its accetance
many times:


Never. What I have done, ****wit, and very
successfully, is to show that your position is
illogical and absurd, and WRONG. That doesn't make me
an "ara", ****wit; it makes me an anti-****wit.

I am a meat
eater;



You are a liar


No, I am a truth-telling meat eater.

  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-05-2004, 12:42 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:10:15 GMT, Wilson Woods wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:55:09 GMT, Wilson Woods wrote:


JethroUKę wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
thlink.net...


JethroUKę wrote:



and more
precisely to oppose your view

In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
liar. But we already knew that.



i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view

Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
****tard: you are incompetent.



Haven't lied once

You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.


- You 'believe' eating animals is wrong

That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.



Yes you do.


No, I don't, ****wit. You're just wrong.

You believe that their
lives mean nothing,


Irrelevant. Their lives DON'T mean anything,


Not to you "ARAs". Only their deaths mean anything
you.

at least
not in the ****witted, WRONG way you believe they do.
That is EXACTLY one of the reasons I don't believe
eating them is wrong. How *could* it be wrong, if
their lives don't mean anything.

but their deaths are very significant.


No. I do not consider their deaths of any particular
significance.


"the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it."

"aras" do, but I'm not an "ara", as you
have always known.

You have no opposition to "AR",


False. I am strenuously and unalterably opposed to
"ar",


But you can't present any of your opposition.


  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-05-2004, 07:11 PM
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

If we breed more morons - we can get cheaper politicians - and meat-eaters!


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2012, 05:35 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.philosophy,sci.agriculture,alt.food.vegan,alt.sci.sociology
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Why is the Gonad so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

On 5/16/2004 1:41 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson wrote:


wrote:


On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson wrote:



JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
legitimate questions.

Jethro wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?


Like ****wit, Jethro****wit couldn't answer.



I've asked you "ARAs"

No.


*Still* no.




more than once for whom or what it would
be better not to raise animals to eat.

They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals


And exactly why is that?


Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
wrong, not I.


There is nothing wrong with it Prof. Woods. We have established
that.


I don't believe there is, ****wit, but *you* certainly haven't
established any such thing.


Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
somehow wrong, so much so that you have offered the
"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.


*You* think it's wrong to kill livestock animals, ****wit, but you think
you mitigate that harm by the silly fiction that "at least the animals
'get to experience life'."

It's no mitigation at all, ****wit - their "getting to experience life"
is meaningless.


Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.


Let's see...how could I think it's wrong? Because it
provides them with life? No, that's not it. Because it
means less life for them? No, it means more life for them.
Hmmm....how is it wrong? I don't see how it could be
wrong Prof. Woods.


You *do* think it's wrong, ****wit, but you think the wrong is somehow
mitigated by the "gift of life." There is no "gift of life", ****wit.
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit or gift to livestock, ****wit.


they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
your answer.


You didn't answer the question.


It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
been asked of JethroFW and you:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?

Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
Then, maybe, someone will address your question.


As expected, ****wit didn't answer. That's because he can't, and he
knows he can't.



Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
yourself to people who are NOT "aras".


Most of the time I'm addressing


People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
"aras", ****wit.


You are an "ARA" Prof. Woods.


No, ****wit. You know that none of the people you accused of being
"ara" moles ever were "aras". You know that, ****wit.



Most of the
time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
life" nonsense.

Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
living,


And I asked who would benefit if they are.


Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
answered my question. You will not evade my question
by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
my question:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


It can be good for them without being "better" for
them Prof. Woods.


No, ****wit. "Getting to experience life" is not "good" for any
domestic livestock, ****wit. It has no meaning to them at all, ****wit.


A decent life is good for those who have
one imo,


Only in comparison to a bad life, ****wit. "Getting to experience life"
in the first place is meaningless, ****wit.



ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
"better" for the currently non-existent animals
themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
"better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.


Then it's not better for anything to live than not to live
Prof. Woods, so it's not "better" for livestock to live than not
to.


So why have you been pretending you never wrote this for the last eight
years, ****wit?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 20 01-11-2008 05:29 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 3 26-10-2008 03:41 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 0 26-10-2008 12:22 AM
simple question, bet the answer isnt..... snpm Winemaking 4 12-04-2007 06:04 PM
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions? Wilson Woods Vegan 28 22-05-2004 02:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ę2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017