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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-05-2004, 10:49 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

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?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"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?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.



  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-05-2004, 11:12 PM
Pale in Wales
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?


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

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"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?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.


Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals.
Really....Love them.



  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-05-2004, 11:14 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

Pale in Wales wrote:
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?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"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?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.



Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals.
Really....Love them.


That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 02:23 AM
Immortalist
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?


"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Pale in Wales wrote:
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?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"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?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.



Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals.
Really....Love them.


That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.


http://images.google.com/images?q=jethro+hillbillies


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 01:54 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so much cleverer than me

I wont answer a question to a question (that's the domain of aresoles)

If you want the answer, then answer




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 05:15 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

JethroUK© wrote:
I wont answer a question to a question


Because you're a coward; because you know that
answering it puts you into an untenable position.
Okay, pal, have it your way - don't answer. I'll
provide your answers for you.


Q. Why does JethroFW think it's important to point out
that livestock only live because they are bred to
be used?


A. Because JethroFW thinks that he is doing some kind
of "good deed"
to animals by causing them to exist. JethroFW offers
his "good deed" as an attempt to mitigate the
moral harm
he feels he causes by killing the animals.


Q. When JethroFW asks,

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

for whom or what might it be "better"?

A. JethroFW means better for the animal in question;
in other words,
JethroFW means that it is "better" for the animal,
which previously didn't exist, to "get to
experience life". JethroFW employs the discredited,
illogical
"logic of the larder".


Q. Why won't JethroFW answer these proper questions?

A. Because JethroFW knows that to answer them is to reveal
just how untenable his position is.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 08:22 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so good?

Well if you wont ask me a question - here's an easy one for you:

what is your (personal) moral stance on eating meat?

i'll try pretend i give a shit - just for the benefit of the argument & i
will warn you, you've already lost


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 08:34 PM
Pale in Wales
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so good?


"JethroUK©" wrote in message
news:x%[email protected]
Well if you wont ask me a question - here's an easy one for you:

what is your (personal) moral stance on eating meat?

i'll try pretend i give a shit - just for the benefit of the argument & i
will warn you, you've already lost


Who needs a moral stance? We're carnivores. Ugh! Meat Good!


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 09:11 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroFW so evasive and cowardly?

JethroUK© wrote:

Well if you wont ask me a question


I have asked you questions, JethroFW, several of them,
and you keep evading them and refusing to answer them.
They're good questions, too, and not particularly
difficult to answer...or, I wouldn't have thought they
were, prior to seeing the abject terror they seem to
produce in you.

Here they are again, JethroFW:

JethroFW 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?"

Here's my question, JethroFW: "better"/"more moral"
for whom or what? Please answer it without any more
evasion, JethroFW.

Here's another good and simple one, JethroFW: why do
you think it is important to draw attention to the
little factlette that livestock animals "only get to
live" because they are bred for us to use? I have
already acknowledged the factual basis of the
factlette, JethroFW; now I am asking you a good, simple
and legitimate question: why do you think the
factlette has any importance at all? Answer it,
JethroFW; the time for spinelessness is over.

  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 12:33 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.

but is it racist, or sheepist?




  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 08:43 PM
not a philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?


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

It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
raise it to slaughter and eat. First it damages the human
spirit to eat other animals, IMO. Second meat is rather
unhealthy, isn't it.



  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 09:02 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

not a philosopher wrote:

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

It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
raise it to slaughter and eat. First it damages the human
spirit to eat other animals, IMO.


I fully disagree with your opinion, but it is at least
an honest opinion, and one that many millions of people
have shared.

It is obvious that JethroFW holds a diametrically
opposite opinion to yours: JethroFW believes it is
better that the livestock animals are born and "get to
experience life".

In my opinion, it simply isn't an issue. I don't view
human consumption of animals as in any way wrong or
corrosive to the human spirit, but I also don't believe
that animals "benefit" in any way from coming into
existence: existence _per se_ cannot be a "benefit".

Second meat is rather unhealthy, isn't it.


You mean *unhealthful*, not "unhealthy": if one eats
too many unhealthful things, one will BE unhealthy.

The answer is No, it is not intrinsically unhealthful.
Too much meat probably is, though.

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 09:44 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

not a philosopher wrote:

Hit send before finishing... sorry.

...
Second meat is rather unhealthy, isn't it.


It can be when eaten in excess, or when the wrong cuts are chosen. Lean meats
are suitable for a healthful diet. Some meats also have healthful benefits, such
as providing nutrients like CLA (lean beef and pork, game), omega-3 fatty acids
(fish, grass-fed beef, game), etc. See the links for more information.

http://www.mercola.com/beef/cla.htm
http://www.bikescor.com/BENEFITS%20O...FED%20BEEF.htm
http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cd...glossaryId=162

Don't make an error of generalization. Lean cuts are healthful and nutritious,
especially from wild game and grass-fed beef or bison. Fatty seafood like salmon
is also healthful, raising HDL (good cholesterol). On the flip side of your
argument, one can have an unhealthful vegetarian diet and be far worse off than
one who eats a healthful diet that includes even a lot of meat.

  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 11:59 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?


"not a philosopher" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

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

It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
raise it to slaughter and eat.


but if you are going to eat it anyway - it's better (for animalkind) to
raise it (than just wipe out the populous)


First it damages the human
spirit to eat other animals, IMO.


depends on the idividual - you cant speak for everyone

Second meat is rather
unhealthy, isn't it.


a healthy diet requires moderation in all foods


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-05-2004, 09:46 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
nk.net...
JethroUK© wrote:

"not a philosopher" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.net...
: 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?"

It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
raise it to slaughter and eat.



but if you are going to eat it anyway - it's better (for animalkind)


No such thing.


Ok - it's better the animal world as a whole - is that easier for you to
grasp?




First it damages the human spirit to eat other animals, IMO.



depends on the idividual - you cant speak for everyone


You seem to think you can speak for all of
"animalkind", you idiot.


facts dear boy, are evident! - the gene pool alone benefits from a larger
populous - how much evidence would you like?




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
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions? Wilson Woods Vegan 70 21-03-2012 05:35 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017