Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Jack" > wrote in message ... >On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John Stafford > wrote: >> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well >> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human >> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why >> don't we just add them to the food supply? > >Could you rephrase that. > >It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key >point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to being >raised for food. As yet you still haven't explained what they "taught" you in grade school that allows you to say whether they ever are or not. >That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder". As far as we know it's only called that by misnomer addicts. Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing into consideration, or something similar to that. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:40:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for >>>>>AR. >>>>> >>>>>Who wins? >>>> >>>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive >>>> value and humane deaths appear to win >>> >>>Does it really? >> >> Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the >> fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all. >> >>>How did you figure that? >> >> It appears to be true for all sentient creatures. >> >>>How many many decent animal lives >>>does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life? >> >> That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to >> consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting >> that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember >> that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect >> for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for >> any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it..... > >We are morally culpable for causing animals to suffer, we're not entitled to >moral credit because they "experience life", the fact has no moral >significance. You failed entirely. Again I encourage you to try to get somewhere... |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >>"Jack" > wrote in message ... >>On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John Stafford > wrote: >>> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well >>> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human >>> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why >>> don't we just add them to the food supply? >> >>Could you rephrase that. >> >>It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key >>point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to being >>raised for food. > > As yet you still haven't explained what they "taught" you in > grade school that allows you to say whether they ever are or not. I have explained it to you more times than I can count, but as when I talk to my dog, I have learned that you are not capable of understanding the meaning of the words. >>That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder". > > As far as we know it's only called that by misnomer addicts. That is an outright lie, most of the opponents of the LoL have been avowed antis. > Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing > into consideration, or something similar to that. Morons like you say that. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:40:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works >>>>>>for >>>>>>AR. >>>>>> >>>>>>Who wins? >>>>> >>>>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive >>>>> value and humane deaths appear to win >>>> >>>>Does it really? >>> >>> Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the >>> fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all. >>> >>>>How did you figure that? >>> >>> It appears to be true for all sentient creatures. >>> >>>>How many many decent animal lives >>>>does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life? >>> >>> That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to >>> consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting >>> that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember >>> that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect >>> for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for >>> any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it..... >> >>We are morally culpable for causing animals to suffer, we're not entitled >>to >>moral credit because they "experience life", the fact has no moral >>significance. > > You failed entirely. Again I encourage you to try to get > somewhere... I failed as I always do when I attempt to communicate an idea with nuance to a being who doesn't even know what nuance means. Doesn't seem like I need encouragement to keep doing it though, after a decade. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:49:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>>"Jack" > wrote in message ... >>>On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John Stafford > wrote: >>>> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well >>>> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human >>>> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why >>>> don't we just add them to the food supply? >>> >>>Could you rephrase that. >>> >>>It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key >>>point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to being >>>raised for food. >> >> As yet you still haven't explained what they "taught" you in >> grade school that allows you to say whether they ever are or not. > >I have explained it to you more times than I can count, but as when I talk >to my dog, I have learned that you are not capable of understanding the >meaning of the words. It's not that I don't understand what you tell me, it's that I usually disbelieve you. But in this particular case so far you haven't even provided anything to consider. Again I challenge you to try explaining what you think you were taught in grade school prevents life from ever being a benefit. >>>That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder". >> >> As far as we know it's only called that by misnomer addicts. > >That is an outright lie, most of the opponents of the LoL have been avowed >antis. I believe that's a lie. I have never considered Goo or you to be opponents of elimination. Quite the opposite in fact I consider you to be the most dedicated of its supporters. >> Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing >> into consideration, or something similar to that. > >Morons like you say that. Taking the animals we're discussing into consideration is exactly that, whether you call it that or the LoL. This is of course the same type of contemptible dishonesty you people use by referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals as "animal rights". It's the same sort of dishonestly you use when you tell children that going vegan saves livestock animals, and it's the same sort of dishonesty you use when you pretend that nothing on Earth has ever benefitted from living. It's a familiar type of dishonesty very common to your movement. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:02:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:40:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works >>>>>>>for >>>>>>>AR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Who wins? >>>>>> >>>>>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive >>>>>> value and humane deaths appear to win >>>>> >>>>>Does it really? >>>> >>>> Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the >>>> fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all. >>>> >>>>>How did you figure that? >>>> >>>> It appears to be true for all sentient creatures. >>>> >>>>>How many many decent animal lives >>>>>does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life? >>>> >>>> That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to >>>> consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting >>>> that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember >>>> that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect >>>> for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for >>>> any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it..... >>> >>>We are morally culpable for causing animals to suffer, we're not entitled >>>to >>>moral credit because they "experience life", the fact has no moral >>>significance. >> >> You failed entirely. Again I encourage you to try to get >> somewhere... > >I failed as I always do when I attempt to communicate an idea with nuance to >a being who doesn't even know what nuance means. You lied to me, and I know it was a lie. You did NOT get anywhere with the aspect of lives of positive value as I encouraged you to attempt. >Doesn't seem like I need encouragement to keep doing it though, after a >decade. At one time you pretended to appreciate that there are livestock who experience lives of positive value, but if you ever could you now want people to believe you have unlearned how to do so. Also you are attempting to cause me to unlearn that same thing, but you haven't been able to make me unlearn it. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:49:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Jack" > wrote in message ... >>>>On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John Stafford > wrote: >>>>> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well >>>>> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human >>>>> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then >>>>> why >>>>> don't we just add them to the food supply? >>>> >>>>Could you rephrase that. >>>> >>>>It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key >>>>point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to >>>>being >>>>raised for food. >>> >>> As yet you still haven't explained what they "taught" you in >>> grade school that allows you to say whether they ever are or not. >> >>I have explained it to you more times than I can count, but as when I talk >>to my dog, I have learned that you are not capable of understanding the >>meaning of the words. > > It's not that I don't understand what you tell me You have never shown any indication that you understand. Show me now, prove you understand, Go: , it's that > I usually disbelieve you. But in this particular case so far you > haven't even provided anything to consider. Again I challenge you > to try explaining what you think you were taught in grade school > prevents life from ever being a benefit. A benefit improves the welfare of an entity, life doesn't do that. >>>>That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder". >>> >>> As far as we know it's only called that by misnomer addicts. >> >>That is an outright lie, most of the opponents of the LoL have been avowed >>antis. > > I believe that's a lie. I have never considered Goo or you to > be opponents of elimination. Quite the opposite in fact I > consider you to be the most dedicated of its supporters. So you're quite content living in a fantasy world of your own creation.. OK. > >>> Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing >>> into consideration, or something similar to that. >> >>Morons like you say that. > > Taking the animals we're discussing into consideration is > exactly that, If AR gets it's way those animals would not exist, so there's nothing to consider. > whether you call it that or the LoL. This is of > course the same type of contemptible dishonesty you people use by > referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals as > "animal rights". Eliminating "domestication" doesn't harm any animals. > It's the same sort of dishonestly you use when > you tell children that going vegan saves livestock animals, and > it's the same sort of dishonesty you use when you pretend that > nothing on Earth has ever benefitted from living. It's a familiar > type of dishonesty very common to your movement. You managed to include just about every one of your usual fallacies and equivocations there. Good summation. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:02:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:40:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works >>>>>>>>for >>>>>>>>AR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Who wins? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive >>>>>>> value and humane deaths appear to win >>>>>> >>>>>>Does it really? >>>>> >>>>> Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the >>>>> fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all. >>>>> >>>>>>How did you figure that? >>>>> >>>>> It appears to be true for all sentient creatures. >>>>> >>>>>>How many many decent animal lives >>>>>>does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life? >>>>> >>>>> That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to >>>>> consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting >>>>> that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember >>>>> that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect >>>>> for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for >>>>> any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it..... >>>> >>>>We are morally culpable for causing animals to suffer, we're not >>>>entitled >>>>to >>>>moral credit because they "experience life", the fact has no moral >>>>significance. >>> >>> You failed entirely. Again I encourage you to try to get >>> somewhere... >> >>I failed as I always do when I attempt to communicate an idea with nuance >>to >>a being who doesn't even know what nuance means. > > You lied to me, and I know it was a lie. You did NOT get > anywhere with the aspect of lives of positive value as I > encouraged you to attempt. > >>Doesn't seem like I need encouragement to keep doing it though, after a >>decade. > > At one time you pretended to appreciate that there are > livestock who experience lives of positive value There are some, but fewer and fewer as time goes on and the animal industry becomes more mechanized and controlled by fewer and fewer large conglomerates. What am I supposed to "appreciate" that you think I'm not? , but if you ever > could you now want people to believe you have unlearned how to do > so. Also you are attempting to cause me to unlearn that same > thing, but you haven't been able to make me unlearn it. I'm trying to help you break free from the LoL, it's a useless mind ****. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On Apr 12, 8:14*am, dh@. wrote:
> > > * * It probably goes back to the evolutionary process before > modern man appeared. You don't know anything about biology or evolution. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/13/2010 8:53 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:02:35 -0700, > wrote: > >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:40:31 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> AR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who wins? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive >>>>>>> value and humane deaths appear to win >>>>>> >>>>>> Does it really? >>>>> >>>>> Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the >>>>> fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all. >>>>> >>>>>> How did you figure that? >>>>> >>>>> It appears to be true for all sentient creatures. >>>>> >>>>>> How many many decent animal lives >>>>>> does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life? >>>>> >>>>> That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to >>>>> consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting >>>>> that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember >>>>> that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect >>>>> for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for >>>>> any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it..... >>>> >>>> We are morally culpable for causing animals to suffer, we're not entitled >>>> to moral credit because they "experience life", the fact has no moral >>>> significance. >>> >>> You failed entirely. He didn't. He spotlighted the huge flaw in your shabby argument. He has done so quite literally hundreds of times. >>> Again I encourage you to try to get >>> somewhere... >> >> I failed as I always do when I attempt to communicate an idea with nuance to >> a being who doesn't even know what nuance means. > > You lied to me, He didn't. You are the one who lied. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/13/2010 8:46 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:49:52 -0700, > wrote: > >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>> On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John > wrote: >>>>> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well >>>>> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human >>>>> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why >>>>> don't we just add them to the food supply? >>>> >>>> Could you rephrase that. >>>> >>>> It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key >>>> point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to being >>>> raised for food. >>> >>> As yet you still haven't explained what they "taught" you in >>> grade school that allows you to say whether they ever are or not. >> >> I have explained it to you more times than I can count, but as when I talk >> to my dog, I have learned that you are not capable of understanding the >> meaning of the words. > > It's not that I don't understand what you tell me, Yes, that's exactly the problem. >>>> That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder". >>> >>> As far as we know it's only called that by That's what it's called. >> That is an outright lie, most of the opponents of the LoL have been avowed >> antis. > > I believe that's a lie. You know it isn't a lie. When you say you believe it's a lie, you're lying. >>> Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing >>> into consideration, or something similar to that. >> >> Morons like you say that. > > Taking the animals we're discussing into consideration is > exactly that You give them no consideration. That's only your smokescreen. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/13/2010 11:45 AM, Dutch wrote:
> > <dh@.> wrote in message ... >> appreciate that there are >> livestock who experience lives of positive value > > There are some, but fewer and fewer as time goes on and the animal > industry becomes more mechanized and controlled by fewer and fewer large > conglomerates. > > What am I supposed to "appreciate" that you think I'm not? You're supposed to "appreciate" that the animals "get to experience life". He believes, irrationally, that that's a good thing for the animals, and he wants everyone to be irrational like him. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/8/2010 2:50 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, > wrote: > >> <dh@.> wrote >>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, > wrote: >> >>>> And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for >>>> AR. >>>> >>>> Who wins? >>> >>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive >>> value and humane deaths appear to win >> >> Does it really? > > Yes THEY do. They don't. They aren't better off for existing. >> How did you figure that? > > It appears to be true for all sentient creatures. It isn't true for anything. >> How many many decent animal lives >> does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life? > > That's a different subject, No, it isn't. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/12/2010 8:32 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:40:31 -0700, > wrote: > >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, > wrote: >>>> >>>>>> And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for >>>>>> AR. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who wins? >>>>> >>>>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive >>>>> value and humane deaths appear to win >>>> >>>> Does it really? >>> >>> Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the >>> fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all. >>> >>>> How did you figure that? >>> >>> It appears to be true for all sentient creatures. >>> >>>> How many many decent animal lives >>>> does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life? >>> >>> That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to >>> consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting >>> that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember >>> that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect >>> for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for >>> any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it..... >> >> We are morally culpable for causing animals to suffer, we're not entitled to >> moral credit because they "experience life", the fact has no moral >> significance. > > You failed entirely. He failed in the same way one might fail in trying to teach a pig to play the piano. You are incapable of learning. Nothing has changed. You're still trying to sell this "lives of positive value" hokum, and no one is buying it, because the know it's nonsense, and not even what you're actually trying to sell. What you're trying to sell people on is the idea that it's good for farm animals if they exist. No sale - no one is buying. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/4/2010 12:23 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:02:34 -0700, > wrote: > >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>>>> >>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people >>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat >>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a >>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass >>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s) >>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he >>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt >>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because >>>>>> "it" >>>>>> is >>>>>> self-serving bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel >>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food. >>>> >>>> That doesn't mean anything. >>> >>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals >>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does >>> consider them. >> >> Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a >> person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them. > > I consider the billions more that I don't eat as much as the > ones that I do, Nothing to consider, and you're lying. You /pretend/ to consider them. Everyone sees through it. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/5/2010 1:06 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:41:01 -0700, > wrote: > >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:02:34 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people >>>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat >>>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a >>>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass >>>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s) >>>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he >>>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt >>>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because >>>>>>>> "it" >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> self-serving bullshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel >>>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food. >>>>>> >>>>>> That doesn't mean anything. >>>>> >>>>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals >>>>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does >>>>> consider them. >>>> >>>> Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a >>>> person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them. >>> >>> I consider the billions more that I don't eat as much as the >>> ones that I do, while misnomer addicts can't afford to consider >>> any. >> >> Explain the purpose of this "considering" of any of them. > > Considering significant aspects of the [snip garbage] You consider nothing except your enjoyment of eating meat; that's all. > >> You can't, > > That's a blatant lie. It's not a blatant lie; it's not a lie at all. >> because its only purpose is to serve your circular little self-serving >> argument and you are loath to admit it. Let's put it all back together, minus your cheap and ethically bankrupt hacking/editing: Explain the purpose of this "considering" of any of them. You can't, because its only purpose is to serve your circular little self-serving argument and you are loath to admit it. That's true: you can't, because its only purpose is to serve your circular little self-serving argument. You give no "consideration" to animals' lives. You're a liar when you say you do. >>>> What a complete joke you are. >>> >>> What a completely selfish person you are. >> >> Selfish towards whom or what? > > Every single creature other than yourself You are the selfish one. You are ashamed of your own tastes, and you've contrived a nonsense rationale for them. You give no consideration to the lives of animals. It's only about satisfying your tastes. There's nothing with pursuing your interests. There is something badly wrong with pretending that's not what you're doing, when it's obvious that it is exactly what you're doing. It's dishonest to do that, but of course we expect non-stop dishonesty from you, and you never fail to deliver - to deliver dishonesty by the truckload. It's even worse when you are the one selfishly pursuing your own interest, and you accuse others of doing that while lamely pretending you are not. It is a testament to your towering stupidity that you think no one sees what you're doing. EVERYONE sees it. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/7/2010 11:53 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:23:33 -0700, > wrote: > >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:41:01 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:02:34 -0700, > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people >>>>>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat >>>>>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a >>>>>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass >>>>>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s) >>>>>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he >>>>>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt >>>>>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because >>>>>>>>>> "it" >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> self-serving bullshit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel >>>>>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That doesn't mean anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals >>>>>>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does >>>>>>> consider them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being >>>>>> a >>>>>> person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them. >>>>> >>>>> I consider the billions more that I don't eat as much as the >>>>> ones that I do, while misnomer addicts can't afford to consider >>>>> any. >>>> >>>> Explain the purpose of this "considering" of any of them. >>> >>> Considering significant aspects of the situation like that >>> gives me a more realistic interpretation than misnomer addicts >>> are able to form by only considering things that support the >>> elimination objective. >> >> Explain the significance, I don't see it. > > The significance is EXPLAIN the significance. Don't tell us who it's for. IDENTIFY and EXPLAIN it. You can't, of course. >>>> You can't, >>> >>> That's a blatant lie. >>> >>>> because >>>> it's its only purpose is to serve your circular little self-serving >>>> argument >>>> and you are loath to admit it. >>>> >>>>>> What a complete joke you are. >>>>> >>>>> What a completely selfish person you are. >>>> >>>> Selfish towards whom or what? >>> >>> Every single creature other than yourself: >> >> In what sense? > > In every sense In what sense? Be specific. You can't, of course. You're just being deliberately evasive and obtuse. Look up "obtuse", and get back to us - we all know you don't know what it means. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/8/2010 2:44 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote: > >> <dh@.> wrote >>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:23:33 -0700, > wrote: >>>> Explain the significance, I don't see it. >>> >>> The significance is to the animals. >> >> What animals? I don't see how it affects any animals, you'll have to be more >> specific. Give an example of an animal and how it is affected. > > [snip non-response] None of those links explain any significance to farm animals of ceasing to breed them into existence. You can't explain any such significance, because there is none. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/7/2010 11:55 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, > wrote: > >> >> And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for AR. >> >> Who wins? > > Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive > value and humane deaths appear to win, Livestock who come into existence don't "win" anything. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/5/2010 2:26 PM, tunderbar wrote:
> On Mar 31, 3:02 pm, > wrote: >> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:m6a7r5pcu1gtnd7etuc88k6g81gl7bb7s5@4ax .com... >>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, > wrote: >> >>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:vvj4r5t9k0poigoj1go9jp52htcofosr92@4ax .com... >>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, > wrote: >> >>>>>> <dh@.> wrote >> >>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people >>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat >>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a >>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass >>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s) >>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he >>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt >>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it. >> >>>>>> Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because >>>>>> "it" >>>>>> is >>>>>> self-serving bullshit. >> >>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel >>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food. >> >>>> That doesn't mean anything. >> >>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals >>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does >>> consider them. >> >> Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a >> person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them. >> >> What a complete joke you are. > > We don't just eat them. We keep them, feed them, fatten them up, > slaughter them, butcher them, cook them, then we eat them. That's not a serious contribution to the topic. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 3/31/2010 12:56 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, > wrote: > >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>> >>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people >>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat >>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a >>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass >>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s) >>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he >>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt >>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it. >>>> >>>> Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because "it" >>>> is >>>> self-serving bullshit. >>> >>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel >>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food. >> >> That doesn't mean anything. > > Not to those of you It doesn't mean anything at all. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 3/30/2010 12:25 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, > wrote: > >> <dh@.> wrote >> >>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people >>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat >>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a >>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass >>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s) >>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he >>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt >>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it. >> >> Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because "it" is >> self-serving bullshit. > > It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not It's not necessary for anything. |
Posted to alt.philosophy,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
pro-choice on the veg matter
On 4/7/2010 12:21 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:26:56 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar > > wrote: > >> On Mar 31, 3:02 pm, > wrote: >>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:m6a7r5pcu1gtnd7etuc88k6g81gl7bb7s5@4ax .com... >>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:vvj4r5t9k0poigoj1go9jp52htcofosr92@4ax .com... >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, > wrote: >>> >>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote >>> >>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people >>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat >>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a >>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass >>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s) >>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he >>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt >>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it. >>> >>>>>>> Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because >>>>>>> "it" >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> self-serving bullshit. >>> >>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel >>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food. >>> >>>>> That doesn't mean anything. >>> >>>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals >>>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does >>>> consider them. >>> >>> Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a >>> person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them. >>> >>> What a complete joke you are. >> >> We don't just eat them. We keep them, feed them, fatten them up, > > Misnomer addicts can't afford to consider the animals lives. You don't consider the animals' lives at all. -- Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
It does not matter | General Cooking | |||
[OT] Do polls matter? | General Cooking | |||
Does it really matter... | General Cooking | |||
A matter of some delicacy | Tea | |||
Does it matter? | Winemaking |