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  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat


and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20110222MHR4EUr9PmmOjKUZfIMbILk@pAfPU...
> Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>
> Description:
>
> Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian & Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat


I don't think about it that much. I just find meat unappetizing. The less
I ate of it, the less I wanted it.


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:40:42 -0500, "Tim923" > wrote:

>
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
>message news:20110222MHR4EUr9PmmOjKUZfIMbILk@pAfPU...
>> Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>
>> Description:
>>
>> Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian & Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

>
>I don't think about it that much. I just find meat unappetizing. The less
>I ate of it, the less I wanted it.


There are people who like eating meat but feel so badly about doing so that
they become veg*n. Those are the people who are a shame to see. People like
yourself who just don't like meat and are honest about that, THEN you develope
the guilt thing too, makes a bit more sense. You can honestly say you don't care
that it contributes to more deaths to eat tofu than it does to eat grass raised
beef, or that it contributes to a lot more deaths to drink rice milk than cow
milk, especially grass raised. You probably would never be so honest, but you
COULD be. A person who becomes veg*n for supposedly ethical reasons but does
like the taste of animal products wouldn't have that excuse to fall back on.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against EatingMeat

On 3/6/2011 2:45 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:40:42 -0500, > wrote:
>
>>
>> and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
>> message news:20110222MHR4EUr9PmmOjKUZfIMbILk@pAfPU...
>>> Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>>
>>> Description:
>>>
>>> Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian& Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

>>
>> I don't think about it that much. I just find meat unappetizing. The less
>> I ate of it, the less I wanted it.

>
> There are people who like eating meat but feel so badly about doing so that


....that they start cooking up ****witted illogical bullshit rationales
to justify it - like, the animals "benefit" by existing before they are
killed.

You, for example.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against EatingMeat

****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:48:35 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:
>>


>>> There are people who like eating meat but feel so badly about doing so that
>>> they become veg*n.

>>
>> ...that they start cooking up ****witted illogical bullshit rationales
>> to justify it - like, the animals "benefit" by existing before they are
>> killed.
>>
>> You, for example.

>
> Some animals benefit from it


No, Goober. *No* animals benefit by existing, Goober.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:48:35 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:45:21 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:40:42 -0500, "Tim923" > wrote:
>>
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
>>>message news:20110222MHR4EUr9PmmOjKUZfIMbILk@pAfPU...
>>>> Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>>>
>>>> Description:
>>>>
>>>> Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian & Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat
>>>
>>>I don't think about it that much. I just find meat unappetizing. The less
>>>I ate of it, the less I wanted it.

>>
>> There are people who like eating meat but feel so badly about doing so that
>>they become veg*n.

>
>...that they start cooking up ****witted illogical bullshit rationales
>to justify it - like, the animals "benefit" by existing before they are
>killed.
>
>You, for example.


Some animals benefit from it and others don't Goober, but eliminationists
necessarily can't make a distinction between which do and which do not because
being honest about the fact that some do works against the elimination
objective. Those of us who favor decent AW over elimination can and do
appreciate when livestock appear to have lives of positive value for the
animals. In fact as we've seen it is ONLY eliminationists who have reason to
oppose appreciation for that particular aspect of the situation, and all
eliminationists must necessarily be opposed to it. No one else...ONLY
eliminationists.

>>Those are the people who are a shame to see. People like
>>yourself who just don't like meat and are honest about that, THEN you develope
>>the guilt thing too, makes a bit more sense. You can honestly say you don't care
>>that it contributes to more deaths to eat tofu than it does to eat grass raised
>>beef, or that it contributes to a lot more deaths to drink rice milk than cow
>>milk, especially grass raised. You probably would never be so honest, but you
>>COULD be. A person who becomes veg*n for supposedly ethical reasons but does
>>like the taste of animal products wouldn't have that excuse to fall back on.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat


GP might be right. No animals benefit by existing. They do not know
what it means to benefit from something. All they need is to be left
alone to get their food, and money for goods and services, etc.

As far as Goober's comment about Eliminationists (AW) and others, they
have to follow what I say (The One Living God on Earth). Or else.

I ain't changing from Use of Reason, Truth and Non-Violence.

We just shoot them, and then talk to them. We visit with them and talk
to them again. And then we might give up or not give up. Who knows
what the hell happens in this World these days.

Keep cool.

- HSN.


On Mar 7, 12:52*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:
>
> > On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:48:35 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

>
> >> ****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:

>
> >>> * * There are people who like eating meat but feel so badly about doing so that
> >>> they become veg*n.

>
> >> ...that they start cooking up ****witted illogical bullshit rationales
> >> to justify it - like, the animals "benefit" by existing before they are
> >> killed.

>
> >> You, for example.

>
> > * * *Some animals benefit from it

>
> No, Goober. **No* animals benefit by existing, Goober.


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against EatingMeat

****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters when he's
not busy packing Ron Hamilton's fudge, lied:

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:52:05 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters when he's not busy packing Ron Hamilton's fudge, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:48:35 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters when he's not busy packing Ron Hamilton's fudge, lied:


>>>>> There are people who like eating meat but feel so badly about doing so that
>>>>
>>>> ...that they start cooking up ****witted illogical bullshit rationales
>>>> to justify it - like, the animals "benefit" by existing before they are
>>>> killed.
>>>>
>>>> You, for example.
>>>
>>> Some animals benefit from it and

>>
>> No, Goober. *No* animals benefit by existing, Goober.

>
> LOL. Yes it sure does


No, Goober. No animals benefit by existing, Goober.


>> *No* animals benefit by existing

>
> Many appear to


No, they don't.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat


<dh@.> wrote
>>*No* animals benefit by existing

>
> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents them
> from
> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think it
> prevents
> them?


Logic, here's one argument:

Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin, the
other has a life full of pain, suffering and deprivation provided by Tyson.

One pig benefits, the other suffers and is harmed, yet both exist in equal
measure.

Therefore existence itself is clearly not the source of benefit.



  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:52:05 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:45:35 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:48:35 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:45:21 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 20:40:42 -0500, "Tim923" > wrote:
>>>>
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
>>>>>message news:20110222MHR4EUr9PmmOjKUZfIMbILk@pAfPU...
>>>>>> Chapter 43: T he Meat-Free Life
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Description:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian & Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think about it that much. I just find meat unappetizing. The less
>>>>>I ate of it, the less I wanted it.
>>>>
>>>> There are people who like eating meat but feel so badly about doing so that
>>>>they become veg*n.
>>>
>>>...that they start cooking up ****witted illogical bullshit rationales
>>>to justify it - like, the animals "benefit" by existing before they are
>>>killed.
>>>
>>>You, for example.

>>
>> Some animals benefit from it and others don't Goober, but eliminationists
>>necessarily can't make a distinction between which do and which do not because
>>being honest about the fact that some do works against the elimination
>>objective.

>
>No


LOL. Yes it sure does Goo.

>*No* animals benefit by existing


Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents them from
benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think it prevents
them?
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

On Mar 9, 3:07*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >>>*No* animals benefit by existing

>
> >> * *Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents them
> >> from
> >> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think it
> >> prevents
> >> them?

>
> >Logic, here's one argument:

>
> >Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin, the
> >other has a life full of pain, suffering and deprivation provided by Tyson.

>
> >One pig benefits, the other suffers and is harmed, yet both exist in equal
> >measure.

>
> >Therefore existence itself is clearly not the source of benefit.

>
> * * Life can and often does have positive value for animals


No, ****wit. "Life" does not. Things in life do. Life does not.

You have already been instructed in this.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing
>>>
>>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents them
>>> from
>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think it
>>> prevents
>>> them?

>>
>>Logic, here's one argument:
>>
>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin, the
>>other has a life full of pain,

>
> From what?


Doesn't matter, anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>
>>suffering

>
> From what?


What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.
>
>>and deprivation

>
> From what?


Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from, it's
theoretical.

>
>>provided by Tyson.
>>
>>One pig benefits, the other suffers and is harmed, yet both exist in equal
>>measure.
>>
>>Therefore existence itself is clearly not the source of benefit.

>
> Life can and often does have positive value for animals,


Both of the animals in the theoretical example above had "life" in exactly
the same measure and manner, yet one suffered while the other thrived. That
PROVES that "life" is not the source of benefit.

> regardless of how
> you try to pretend it doesn't. Your little pretendings that nothing has
> ever
> benefitted from its existence is just more STUPID! eliminationist attempts
> at
> STUPID! trickery. Your stupid attempt at stupid trickery not only doesn't
> work
> on me, but you can't give me anything to even try pretending along with
> you.
> Here, I'll give you another chance to try:
>
> What do you want people to believe prevents animals from benefitting
> from
> their lives when they appear to be of positive value to the animals, and
> how do
> you think it prevents it?


It's not trickery, the LoL is verbal trickery and my logic demonstrates it.

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>>>*No* animals benefit by existing

>>
>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents them
>> from
>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think it
>> prevents
>> them?

>
>Logic, here's one argument:
>
>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin, the
>other has a life full of pain,


From what?

>suffering


From what?

>and deprivation


From what?

>provided by Tyson.
>
>One pig benefits, the other suffers and is harmed, yet both exist in equal
>measure.
>
>Therefore existence itself is clearly not the source of benefit.


Life can and often does have positive value for animals, regardless of how
you try to pretend it doesn't. Your little pretendings that nothing has ever
benefitted from its existence is just more STUPID! eliminationist attempts at
STUPID! trickery. Your stupid attempt at stupid trickery not only doesn't work
on me, but you can't give me anything to even try pretending along with you.
Here, I'll give you another chance to try:

What do you want people to believe prevents animals from benefitting from
their lives when they appear to be of positive value to the animals, and how do
you think it prevents it?
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

On Mar 10, 3:48*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:422gn61ddj4dtujmoidj9fc4s4p5ndil0t@4ax .com....
> >> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> >>><dh@.> wrote
> >>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing

>
> >>>> * *Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents them
> >>>> from
> >>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think it
> >>>> prevents
> >>>> them?

>
> >>>Logic, here's one argument:

>
> >>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin, the
> >>>other has a life full of pain,

>
> >> * *From what?

>
> >Doesn't matter, anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.

>
> * * IMO they should be provided with something better, but


No, you don't believe that

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care
enough to make the effort.
Goo/****wit 31 July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2v5ayqy

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999


> >>>suffering

>
> >> * *From what?

>
> >What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.


It doesn't matter. ****wit is just trying to waste your time, and
avoid facing the truth.

>
> >>>and deprivation

>
> >> * *From what?

>
> >Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from, it's
> >theoretical.

>
> * * We'll just forget that one since


Since you're just bullshitting and stalling.


> >>>provided by Tyson.

>
> >>>One pig benefits, the other suffers and is harmed, yet both exist in equal
> >>>measure.

>
> >>>Therefore existence itself is clearly not the source of benefit.

>
> >> * *Life can and often does have positive value for animals,

>
> >Both of the animals in the theoretical example above had "life" in exactly
> >the same measure and manner, yet one suffered while the other thrived. That
> >PROVES that "life" is not the source of benefit.

>
>


[snip cracker bullshit and hand-waving]


>
> >> regardless of how
> >> you try to pretend it doesn't. Your little pretendings that nothing has
> >> ever
> >> benefitted from its existence


Nothing *has* ever benefited from existence. Proved.

> >It's not trickery,

>
> * * Trying to get people to incorrectly believe life is not a benefit when it
> is, is a trick that


It's not a trick.

Life is not a benefit. Trying to get people incorrectly to believe
that life is a benefit, when it has been shown conclusively that it
cannot be, is bullshit.


> >the LoL is verbal trickery and my logic demonstrates it.

>
> * * You have never been able to show how


He has.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against EatingMeat

On 3/10/2011 3:48 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, > wrote:
>


>>> Life can and often does have positive value for animals,


Meaningless blabber.


>>
>> Both of the animals in the theoretical example above had "life" in exactly
>> the same measure and manner, yet one suffered while the other thrived. That
>> PROVES that "life" is not the source of benefit.


> It's a benefit which makes all others possible,


*Wrong*. It's a condition that is required for any benefit, but it is
not, itself, a benefit.
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against EatingMeat

****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:


>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> *No* animals benefit by existing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many appear to,


No.


>>
>> I didn't mean that animal living conditions don't matter to me, I mean that
>> for the purpose of this example it doesn't matter what the reason is for the
>> suffering,

>
> Yes it does.


No, it does not, homo ****wit.


>
>> the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.

>
> The opinion of an eliminationist


Ha ha ha ha ha!



>>>> anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>>>
>>> IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard to
>>> provide
>>> pigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all they
>>> ever
>>> know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value for
>>> pigs.

>>
>> Bullshit,

>
> If they never know anything different,


It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003


>> pigs are clean animals, if given the opportunity they will always
>> keep their bedding and mess areas separate.

>
> That doesn't stop them from making a mess,


It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003


>> But again, this is not relevant
>> to my point.

>
> It's all relevant.


It's irrelevant.




>>>>>> and deprivation
>>>>>
>>>>> From what?
>>>>
>>>> Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from, it's
>>>> theoretical.
>>>
>>> We'll just forget that one since the concrete was covered above. Life
>>> still
>>> seems like it may have positive value to Salatin.

>>
>> Sigh, you are obviously missing the point.

>
> No, I asked you for


You bullshitted, attempting to spike the conversation.

You are deliberately ignoring the point.



>>> It's a benefit which makes all others possible

>>
>> Calling it a benefit is begging the question, I have shown that it isn't, as
>> have others.

>
> You have simply claimed that it's not without being able to even attempt to
> explain what you want people to believe prevents it from being one.


It has been well and thoroughly explained why it isn't one: it doesn't
meet the definition.




>>>> It's not trickery,
>>>
>>> Trying to get people to incorrectly believe life is not a benefit when


Life is not a benefit - proved.


>>
>> Life cannot be called a benefit,

>
> It certainly can until


It is not a benefit. Calling it one is lying.



>> Sure I have, the "consideration" you are advocating is cheap sophistry,

>
> That's just a lie the same as


It is not a lie. Your *FAKE* "consideration" - which you don't even
attempt to show - is sophistry.


>> not
>> real "consideration" that helps animals. and the proof of that is that your
>> "consideration" has never helped a single animal, never will, and cannot.

>
> In contrast to that lie


Not a lie - you show no legitimate consideration for animals at all.

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against EatingMeat

****wit David Harrison, Ron Hamilton's anus-of-choice, lied:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:53:31 -0800, > wrote:


>>> IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard to
>>> providepigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all they
>>> ever know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value for
>>> pigs.

>>
>> Bullshit,

>
> If they never know anything different, there's no reason to believe that
> living on concrete makes life of negative value for them.


If they never know anything different from being clubbed over the head
every day, I guess there'd be no reason to believe that would make "life
of negative value for them" either, eh, ****wit?

You are so full of shit, ****wit. You make it up as you go along. If
it's convenient for your fairy tale for animals to know something, then
you believe they know it - and if it's inconvenient for your fable, then
you think they don't know it.

You're completely full of shit. You don't know anything about animals -
*zero*.
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:13:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:53:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Logic, here's one argument:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin,
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>other has a life full of pain,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't matter,
>>>>
>>>> It does to me.
>>>
>>>I didn't mean that animal living conditions don't matter to me, I mean
>>>that
>>>for the purpose of this example it doesn't matter what the reason is for
>>>the
>>>suffering,

>>
>> Yes it does.

>
>No it doesn't, the animal suffering, for whatever reason it occurs, is
>*stipulated*.
>
>>>the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.

>>
>> The opinion of an eliminationist as to whether or not an animal is
>> suffering
>> is of no value at all since you people believe all of them live lives of
>> suffering and I do not.

>
>I'm not a <felch> "eliminationist", but even if I were, the animals in this
>argument are *stipulated* to be suffering.
>
>Do you even understand the word "stipulate"?


You're trying to get me to take your word for something you apparently don't
have any idea about. What I've done is establish the fact that you have no idea
which I correctly predicted, but you had to show me before I could be sure. You
did.

>>>>>anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>>>>
>>>> IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard to
>>>> provide
>>>> pigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all they
>>>> ever
>>>> know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value for
>>>> pigs.
>>>
>>>Bullshit,

>>
>> If they never know anything different, there's no reason to believe
>> that
>> living on concrete makes life of negative value for them.

>
>That's not what I meant, but that is also debatable.


I'm convinced that it varies from one animal to the next, and has very much
to do with whether or not the animal has sores or other injuries.

>>>pigs are clean animals, if given the opportunity they will always
>>>keep their bedding and mess areas separate.

>>
>> That doesn't stop them from making a mess, because whatever they have
>> for
>> bedding they will want to root through looking for food, which usually is
>> going
>> to end up getting it mixed in with their shit and also their food.

>
>Because they don't have enough space and/or their areas are not kept clean.
>Given a sleeping area, a feeding area and a clear area, they will shit and
>**** in the clear area and not spread it into their bedding or food.


I said they would spread their bedding around rooting for food, not that
they would spread their shit around. You can't handle even the most basic of
details, yet you want me to take your word on things I know you don't understand
and even about things I know damn well you're wrong about.

>I've raised pigs,


I disbelieve you. In contrast to that I did raise some pigs...one sow who
had several litters. We raised some of her young to slaughter and eat, and sold
the rest. I was in high school at the time and my parents bought the feed for my
sow in exchange for two pigs from each litter, which we raised to about 100
pounds, killed and butchered ourselves, and all ate.

>they're clean animals if given the opportunity. Pigs in filthy
>conditions will suffer, not only from poor health.
>
>>>But again, this is not relevant
>>>to my point.

>>
>> It's all relevant. You just can't appreciate details enough to
>> understand
>> why.

>
>It's not relevant, you're just suffering from cognitive dissonance (CD).


LOL! No you poor fool, it's the guy who can't handle the details, which is
you, who are experiencing CD. Not the person presenting the details.

>Your brain on some level sees that this destroys your argument so is
>throwing up meaningless defenses against it.


In contrast to that I'm considering more details than you can handle, and
that's pretty much as "far" as it looks like it can ever get for you.

>>>>>>>suffering
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>
>>>>>What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.
>>>>
>>>> Let's say a tail infection. That doesn't make life of negative value
>>>> still,
>>>> I hope.
>>>
>>>I hope also,

>>
>> Maybe.

>
>Don't be ridiculous, nobody who has ever posted here wants animals to
>suffer.
>
>>>but again, not relevant to the point.

>>
>> In contrast to that, if it's the case then it destroys your point.

>
>Why? I didn't say anything about a tail infection. Is it your contention
>that NO livestock suffer,


You know it's not, and I know you know it's not.

>EVER? If so, you're an idiot, if not, then the
>ones which do suffer are the ones I am talking about. Those animals who do
>suffer *experience life* in the same measure as the ones who don't.
>Therefore *experiencing life* is not what creates value,


It can have positive or negative value, as I've pointed out to you countless
times.

>it is a constant
>among ALL animals.


And should be taken into consideration for ALL creatures, instead of none as
eliminationists insist.

>>>>>>>and deprivation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from,
>>>>>it's
>>>>>theoretical.
>>>>
>>>> We'll just forget that one since the concrete was covered above. Life
>>>> still
>>>> seems like it may have positive value to Salatin.
>>>
>>>Sigh, you are obviously missing the point.

>>
>> No, I asked you for details to establish whether you had a point or
>> not. It
>> turns out in this case you don't.

>
>The point has been made very clear,


You couldn't even provide an example, much less make a point with it. Even
if you had though, since nothing can benefit after it's dead, and nothing that's
not alive can benefit at all, it will always remain clear that life is one of
the benefits which makes all others possible regardless of how you try to lie
that it's not.
.. . .
>>>> It's a benefit which makes all others possible
>>>
>>>Calling it a benefit is begging the question, I have shown that it isn't,
>>>as
>>>have others.

>>
>> You have simply claimed that it's not without being able to even
>> attempt to
>> explain what you want people to believe prevents it from being one.

>
>It's been explained to you probably a thousand times. A benefit means "an
>improvement to the welfare of an entity", that means an entity must have two
>states, one before and one after the benefit for such a measurement to be
>possible. Before existence there is no such state.


How do you want us to believe that something about "Before existence"
prevents beings from benefitting from lives they clearly appear to be
benefitting from?

>> So far you
>> have never been able to explain, so of course neither you nor I nor anyone
>> else
>> has any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. That being the
>> case it
>> continues to appear this is just something else you're trying to lie about
>> in an
>> attempt to support acceptance of elimination.

>
>I just explained it


No you did not. All you did was make a claim that something about "Before
existence" prevents animals from benefitting from lives they clearly appear to
be benefitting from, but you can never explain what you want us to think does so
or how you want us to think anything does so.
.. . .
>>>"consideration" has never helped a single animal, never will, and cannot.

>>
>> In contrast to that lie what you are afraid of is that considering the
>> lives
>> of the animals they consume would cause more people to favor decent AW
>> over
>> elimination, causing them to become more conscientious consumers of animal
>> products instead of vegans.

>
>I'm not afraid of that because it's an absurdity. Nobody consumes meat
>because it means livestock "get to experience life", not you, not me,
>nobody.


It wouldn't necessarily mean many people would stop being vegan in order to
contribute to lives of positive value with their lifestyle. As you suggest most
would be too selfish to consider anything like that and they are only vegan
because they don't like meat, not in any real attempt to try to help livestock.

But there are those few who either have no personal aversion to eating meat
or even like it, but (again) they have been fooled into believing veganism is
ethically supreme. THOSE are the people who should learn to appreciate when
livestock have lives of positive value so they can be more conscientious
consumers of animal products and contribute to decent lives for livestock with
their lifestyle instead of doing nothing. People in favor of elimination refuse
to consider the animals for selfish personal reasons and will just never
consider them, and as you demonstrate some of the more extreme are maniacally
opposed to seeing people consider the animals. But some of us do in spite of you
which is why cage free eggs are available, and why we pay extra to support cage
free lives for laying hens and encourage other people to do so also.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat



<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:13:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:53:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:422gn61ddj4dtujmoidj9fc4s4p5ndil0t@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think
>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Logic, here's one argument:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin,
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>other has a life full of pain,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doesn't matter,
>>>>>
>>>>> It does to me.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't mean that animal living conditions don't matter to me, I mean
>>>>that
>>>>for the purpose of this example it doesn't matter what the reason is for
>>>>the
>>>>suffering,
>>>
>>> Yes it does.

>>
>>No it doesn't, the animal suffering, for whatever reason it occurs, is
>>*stipulated*.
>>
>>>>the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.
>>>
>>> The opinion of an eliminationist as to whether or not an animal is
>>> suffering
>>> is of no value at all since you people believe all of them live lives of
>>> suffering and I do not.

>>
>>I'm not a <felch> "eliminationist", but even if I were, the animals in
>>this
>>argument are *stipulated* to be suffering.
>>
>>Do you even understand the word "stipulate"?

>
> You're trying to get me to take your word for something you apparently
> don't
> have any idea about. What I've done is establish the fact that you have no
> idea
> which I correctly predicted, but you had to show me before I could be
> sure. You
> did.


Some livestock suffer, right? They have "lives of negative value", right?
Those are the ones I'm talking about.

This is not hard.

>>>>>>anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard to
>>>>> provide
>>>>> pigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all they
>>>>> ever
>>>>> know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value
>>>>> for
>>>>> pigs.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit,
>>>
>>> If they never know anything different, there's no reason to believe
>>> that
>>> living on concrete makes life of negative value for them.

>>
>>That's not what I meant, but that is also debatable.

>
> I'm convinced that it varies from one animal to the next, and has very
> much
> to do with whether or not the animal has sores or other injuries.


Right, therefore you DO know what I'm talking about, contrary to your
felching above.


>>>>pigs are clean animals, if given the opportunity they will always
>>>>keep their bedding and mess areas separate.
>>>
>>> That doesn't stop them from making a mess, because whatever they have
>>> for
>>> bedding they will want to root through looking for food, which usually
>>> is
>>> going
>>> to end up getting it mixed in with their shit and also their food.

>>
>>Because they don't have enough space and/or their areas are not kept
>>clean.
>>Given a sleeping area, a feeding area and a clear area, they will shit and
>>**** in the clear area and not spread it into their bedding or food.

>
> I said they would spread their bedding around rooting for food, not
> that
> they would spread their shit around. You can't handle even the most basic
> of
> details, yet you want me to take your word on things I know you don't
> understand
> and even about things I know damn well you're wrong about.


I said that pigs are clean animals, given the opportunity. It's a fact.
>
>>I've raised pigs,

>
> I disbelieve you.


I don't give a flying **** what redneck cracker goober cockfighting shitbags
believe.

In contrast to that I did raise some pigs...one sow who
> had several litters. We raised some of her young to slaughter and eat, and
> sold
> the rest. I was in high school at the time and my parents bought the feed
> for my
> sow in exchange for two pigs from each litter, which we raised to about
> 100
> pounds, killed and butchered ourselves, and all ate.
>
>>they're clean animals if given the opportunity. Pigs in filthy
>>conditions will suffer, not only from poor health.
>>
>>>>But again, this is not relevant
>>>>to my point.
>>>
>>> It's all relevant. You just can't appreciate details enough to
>>> understand
>>> why.

>>
>>It's not relevant, you're just suffering from cognitive dissonance (CD).

>
> LOL! No you poor fool, it's the guy who can't handle the details, which
> is
> you, who are experiencing CD. Not the person presenting the details.


You're not "presenting details", you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

>>Your brain on some level sees that this destroys your argument so is
>>throwing up meaningless defenses against it.

>
> In contrast to that I'm considering more details than you can handle,
> and
> that's pretty much as "far" as it looks like it can ever get for you.


Your "considering", like your "consideration" is bogus.

>>>>>>>>suffering
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's say a tail infection. That doesn't make life of negative
>>>>> value
>>>>> still,
>>>>> I hope.
>>>>
>>>>I hope also,
>>>
>>> Maybe.

>>
>>Don't be ridiculous, nobody who has ever posted here wants animals to
>>suffer.
>>
>>>>but again, not relevant to the point.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that, if it's the case then it destroys your point.

>>
>>Why? I didn't say anything about a tail infection. Is it your contention
>>that NO livestock suffer,

>
> You know it's not, and I know you know it's not.


Then why are you refusing to stipulate it?

>>EVER? If so, you're an idiot, if not, then the
>>ones which do suffer are the ones I am talking about. Those animals who
>>do
>>suffer *experience life* in the same measure as the ones who don't.
>>Therefore *experiencing life* is not what creates value,

>
> It can have positive or negative value, as I've pointed out to you
> countless
> times.


It's conditions (circumstances) that create positive or negative value. Life
itself is a constant.

>>it is a constant
>>among ALL animals.

>
> And should be taken into consideration for ALL creatures, instead of
> none as
> eliminationists insist.


If life itself apart from circumstances is a constant then it doesn't matter
whether we consider it all cases or no cases. If we consider it in all cases
then what do we do about the case of lives of negative value? What does this
"consideration" tell us then?


>>>>>>>>and deprivation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from,
>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>theoretical.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll just forget that one since the concrete was covered above.
>>>>> Life
>>>>> still
>>>>> seems like it may have positive value to Salatin.
>>>>
>>>>Sigh, you are obviously missing the point.
>>>
>>> No, I asked you for details to establish whether you had a point or
>>> not. It
>>> turns out in this case you don't.

>>
>>The point has been made very clear,

>
> You couldn't even provide an example, much less make a point with it.
> Even
> if you had though, since nothing can benefit after it's dead, and nothing
> that's
> not alive can benefit at all, it will always remain clear that life is one
> of
> the benefits which makes all others possible regardless of how you try to
> lie
> that it's not.


Life makes benefits possible, it isn't a benefit itself. That's impossible.

> . . .
>>>>> It's a benefit which makes all others possible
>>>>
>>>>Calling it a benefit is begging the question, I have shown that it
>>>>isn't,
>>>>as
>>>>have others.
>>>
>>> You have simply claimed that it's not without being able to even
>>> attempt to
>>> explain what you want people to believe prevents it from being one.

>>
>>It's been explained to you probably a thousand times. A benefit means "an
>>improvement to the welfare of an entity", that means an entity must have
>>two
>>states, one before and one after the benefit for such a measurement to be
>>possible. Before existence there is no such state.

>
> How do you want us to believe that something about "Before existence"
> prevents beings from benefitting from lives they clearly appear to be
> benefitting from?


They're not, they are benefitting from positive circumstances.

>>> So far you
>>> have never been able to explain, so of course neither you nor I nor
>>> anyone
>>> else
>>> has any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. That being the
>>> case it
>>> continues to appear this is just something else you're trying to lie
>>> about
>>> in an
>>> attempt to support acceptance of elimination.

>>
>>I just explained it

>
> No you did not. All you did was make a claim that something about
> "Before
> existence" prevents animals from benefitting from lives they clearly
> appear to
> be benefitting from, but you can never explain what you want us to think
> does so
> or how you want us to think anything does so.


I get it, you're TOO STUPID to grasp basic logic.

> . . .
>>>>"consideration" has never helped a single animal, never will, and
>>>>cannot.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that lie what you are afraid of is that considering
>>> the
>>> lives
>>> of the animals they consume would cause more people to favor decent AW
>>> over
>>> elimination, causing them to become more conscientious consumers of
>>> animal
>>> products instead of vegans.

>>
>>I'm not afraid of that because it's an absurdity. Nobody consumes meat
>>because it means livestock "get to experience life", not you, not me,
>>nobody.

>
> It wouldn't necessarily mean many people would stop being vegan in
> order to
> contribute to lives of positive value with their lifestyle. As you suggest
> most
> would be too selfish to consider anything like that and they are only
> vegan
> because they don't like meat, not in any real attempt to try to help
> livestock.


That paragraph is false, misleading and misguided on a number of levels.
First, consuming meat is not a prerequisite for contributing to better lives
for livestock. Second there is no reason to believe that vegetarians are
more selfish than meat eaters. Finally, consuming animal products does not
"help livestock". You're just spinning your wheels with these stupid
assumptions. In fact I would say many vegetarians *would* like to eat meat
except that feel they can't for ethical reasons.

> But there are those few who either have no personal aversion to eating
> meat
> or even like it, but (again) they have been fooled into believing veganism
> is
> ethically supreme. THOSE are the people who should learn to appreciate
> when
> livestock have lives of positive value so they can be more conscientious
> consumers of animal products and contribute to decent lives for livestock
> with
> their lifestyle instead of doing nothing. People in favor of elimination
> refuse
> to consider the animals for selfish personal reasons and will just never
> consider them, and as you demonstrate some of the more extreme are
> maniacally
> opposed to seeing people consider the animals. But some of us do in spite
> of you
> which is why cage free eggs are available, and why we pay extra to support
> cage
> free lives for laying hens and encourage other people to do so also.


That's considering the "conditions" animals are provided, not the bullshit
"consider their lives" you are trying to push.




  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against EatingMeat

On 3/15/2011 10:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:13:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>> I'm not a <felch> "eliminationist", but even if I were, the animals in
>>> this
>>> argument are *stipulated* to be suffering.
>>>
>>> Do you even understand the word "stipulate"?

>>
>> You're trying to get me to [excruciating ****wit ****wittery snipped]

>
> Some livestock suffer, right? They have "lives of negative value", right?
> Those are the ones I'm talking about.
>
> This is not hard.


What's hard - in fact, it's virtually impossible - is to get ****wit to
participate honestly in a discussion.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:59:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:13:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:53:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:h7oin6ppu3g1tv0kidj3u29pdo6pt8ro55@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:422gn61ddj4dtujmoidj9fc4s4p5ndil0t@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think
>>>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Logic, here's one argument:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer,
>>>>>>>>>>Salatin,
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>other has a life full of pain,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Doesn't matter,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't mean that animal living conditions don't matter to me, I mean
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>for the purpose of this example it doesn't matter what the reason is
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>suffering,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it does.
>>>>
>>>>No it doesn't, the animal suffering, for whatever reason it occurs, is
>>>>*stipulated*.
>>>>
>>>>>>the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.
>>>>>
>>>>> The opinion of an eliminationist as to whether or not an animal is
>>>>> suffering
>>>>> is of no value at all since you people believe all of them live lives
>>>>> of
>>>>> suffering and I do not.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not a <felch> "eliminationist", but even if I were, the animals in
>>>>this
>>>>argument are *stipulated* to be suffering.
>>>>
>>>>Do you even understand the word "stipulate"?
>>>
>>> You're trying to get me to take your word for something you
>>> apparently
>>> don't
>>> have any idea about. What I've done is establish the fact that you have
>>> no
>>> idea
>>> which I correctly predicted, but you had to show me before I could be
>>> sure. You
>>> did.

>>
>>Some livestock suffer, right? They have "lives of negative value", right?
>>Those are the ones I'm talking about.

>
> You people think it's true for all livestock and that none of them have
> lives of positive value.


I don't think all livestock have bad lives, you're using a strawman as a
dodge to evade my point. I'm specifically referring to those that *do*.

Those that *do* also *get to experience life* to exactly the same degree as
the animals who thrive. The difference, the only difference is how we treat
them. The fact that "they get to experience life" is a common factor when
comparing lives of negative and positive value, therefore as in all
equations, it can be eliminated from consideration.

>>This is not hard.

>
> It's impossible for you to evaluate whether or not it's cruel to the
> animals
> for humans to raise them for food.


It's simple, it's not. The purpose for which they are raised does not affect
them in any way.

The purpose for which animals are raised is unknown and invisible to the
animals therefore it is impossible for that purpose to be "cruel to them".
Therefore your statement has no meaning.


>>>>>>>>anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> pigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>> know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> pigs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bullshit,
>>>>>
>>>>> If they never know anything different, there's no reason to believe
>>>>> that
>>>>> living on concrete makes life of negative value for them.
>>>>
>>>>That's not what I meant, but that is also debatable.
>>>
>>> I'm convinced that it varies from one animal to the next, and has
>>> very
>>> much
>>> to do with whether or not the animal has sores or other injuries.

>>
>>Right, therefore you DO know what I'm talking about,

>
> Better than you ever will.


Then why are you refusing to stipulate that some livestock animals suffer?
Why are you being blatantly evasive and dishonest?

>
>>contrary to your
>>felching above.
>>
>>
>>>>>>pigs are clean animals, if given the opportunity they will always
>>>>>>keep their bedding and mess areas separate.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't stop them from making a mess, because whatever they
>>>>> have
>>>>> for
>>>>> bedding they will want to root through looking for food, which usually
>>>>> is
>>>>> going
>>>>> to end up getting it mixed in with their shit and also their food.
>>>>
>>>>Because they don't have enough space and/or their areas are not kept
>>>>clean.
>>>>Given a sleeping area, a feeding area and a clear area, they will shit
>>>>and
>>>>**** in the clear area and not spread it into their bedding or food.
>>>
>>> I said they would spread their bedding around rooting for food, not
>>> that
>>> they would spread their shit around. You can't handle even the most
>>> basic
>>> of
>>> details, yet you want me to take your word on things I know you don't
>>> understand
>>> and even about things I know damn well you're wrong about.

>>
>>I said that pigs

>
> You lie that having consideration for the lives of other creatures is
> sophistry...
>
>>are clean animals, given the opportunity. It's a fact.
>>>
>>>>I've raised pigs,
>>>
>>> I disbelieve you.

>>
>>I don't give a flying **** what redneck cracker goober cockfighting
>>shitbags
>>believe.

>
> ...and by that reaction and other things I know that you lied when you
> said you
> raised pigs.


I raised a few pigs in 1971

> I also know you lied when you said you raised cattle


I raised cattle at the same time.

> and you lied
> when you said you had children.


I once referred to "my children" in hypothetical terms when making a point.

>>> In contrast to that I did raise some pigs...one sow who
>>> had several litters. We raised some of her young to slaughter and eat,
>>> and
>>> sold
>>> the rest. I was in high school at the time and my parents bought the
>>> feed
>>> for my
>>> sow in exchange for two pigs from each litter, which we raised to about
>>> 100
>>> pounds, killed and butchered ourselves, and all ate.
>>>
>>>>they're clean animals if given the opportunity. Pigs in filthy
>>>>conditions will suffer, not only from poor health.
>>>>
>>>>>>But again, this is not relevant
>>>>>>to my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all relevant. You just can't appreciate details enough to
>>>>> understand
>>>>> why.
>>>>
>>>>It's not relevant, you're just suffering from cognitive dissonance (CD).
>>>
>>> LOL! No you poor fool, it's the guy who can't handle the details,
>>> which
>>> is
>>> you, who are experiencing CD. Not the person presenting the details.

>>
>>You're not "presenting details",

>
> Taking the animals' lives into consideration is a NECESSARY part of
> evaluating whether life has positive or negative value to them. That's a
> very
> significant basic aspect of the situation that eliminationists can not
> comprehend.


Livestock that suffer terribly (you now agree that some do) also have lives.
How does taking their lives into consideration change anything?

>
>>you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

>
> You're either too stupid to comprehend why the animals' lives are
> important
> in regards to the animals, or you're dishonestly pretending to be too
> stupid.


It's meaningless, imaginary. The animals' lives play no role at all in this
discussion.

>>>>Your brain on some level sees that this destroys your argument so is
>>>>throwing up meaningless defenses against it.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that I'm considering more details than you can handle,
>>> and
>>> that's pretty much as "far" as it looks like it can ever get for you.

>>
>>Your "considering", like your "consideration" is bogus.

>
> It's only impossible for eliminationists, but all the rest of it can do
> it.


Anyone can do it, if you want to imagine nonsense to support foolish
arguments.



suffering
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's say a tail infection. That doesn't make life of negative
>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>> still,
>>>>>>> I hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope also,
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe.
>>>>
>>>>Don't be ridiculous, nobody who has ever posted here wants animals to
>>>>suffer.
>>>>
>>>>>>but again, not relevant to the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast to that, if it's the case then it destroys your point.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I didn't say anything about a tail infection. Is it your contention
>>>>that NO livestock suffer,
>>>
>>> You know it's not, and I know you know it's not.

>>
>>Then why are you refusing to stipulate it?

>
> You can't do it, so I will.


Answer the question, why did you refuse to stipulate that some livestock
suffer then suddenly change your tune?

> The pig has a fractured leg and is in constant
> pain, and since it's in a weakened condition the other pigs attack and
> abuse it
> also. That pig has a life of negative value at this time, but as long as
> it has
> the benefit of life the value of its life can change.


Yea, it will be put out of it's misery by the farmer, if its lucky.

So now you agree that livestock sometimes suffer, congratulations, you are
1% of the way to being honest.

>
> In the above I referred to two different things with the word life. If
> you're too stupid to figure out which is which and when, then you are just
> mentally unfit to discuss this topic. If you are not too stupid to figure
> it out
> but pretend to be, then you are still unfit to discuss it.


Life does not become a benefit just because you choose to call it one. An
entity *is* the life that it is living.
>
>>>>EVER? If so, you're an idiot, if not, then the
>>>>ones which do suffer are the ones I am talking about. Those animals who
>>>>do
>>>>suffer *experience life* in the same measure as the ones who don't.
>>>>Therefore *experiencing life* is not what creates value,
>>>
>>> It can have positive or negative value, as I've pointed out to you
>>> countless
>>> times.

>>
>>It's conditions (circumstances) that create positive or negative value.
>>Life
>>itself is a constant.

>
> In that respect it's a benefit, since without it nothing else can be
> either.


That's not what benefit means. To benefit is a comparative where an entity
becomes better off after than it was prior. A harm is a comparative where an
entity is worse off after than it was prior. Coming into existence doesn't
fit these terms because there is no prior state.

> That fact is another one you're either too stupid to comprehend, or you
> are
> dishonestly pretending to be too stupid to comprehend.


That would be you here.


>
>>>>it is a constant
>>>>among ALL animals.
>>>
>>> And should be taken into consideration for ALL creatures, instead of
>>> none as
>>> eliminationists insist.

>>
>>If life itself apart from circumstances is a constant then it doesn't
>>matter
>>whether we consider it all cases or no cases. If we consider it in all
>>cases
>>then what do we do about the case of lives of negative value? What does
>>this
>>"consideration" tell us then?

>
> LOL! You really are showing you true colors now. I should milk this for
> a
> while but I'll tell you: We should change conditions so animals don't
> suffer but
> instead have lives of positive value.


That refers to changing "conditions", in other words AW, you said nothing
about "considering their lives"/


>>>>>>>>>>and deprivation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from,
>>>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>>>theoretical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We'll just forget that one since the concrete was covered above.
>>>>>>> Life
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> seems like it may have positive value to Salatin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sigh, you are obviously missing the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I asked you for details to establish whether you had a point or
>>>>> not. It
>>>>> turns out in this case you don't.
>>>>
>>>>The point has been made very clear,
>>>
>>> You couldn't even provide an example, much less make a point with it.
>>> Even
>>> if you had though, since nothing can benefit after it's dead, and
>>> nothing
>>> that's
>>> not alive can benefit at all, it will always remain clear that life is
>>> one
>>> of
>>> the benefits which makes all others possible regardless of how you try
>>> to
>>> lie
>>> that it's not.

>>
>>Life makes benefits possible, it isn't a benefit itself. That's
>>impossible.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>>>> It's a benefit which makes all others possible
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Calling it a benefit is begging the question, I have shown that it
>>>>>>isn't,
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>have others.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have simply claimed that it's not without being able to even
>>>>> attempt to
>>>>> explain what you want people to believe prevents it from being one.
>>>>
>>>>It's been explained to you probably a thousand times. A benefit means
>>>>"an
>>>>improvement to the welfare of an entity", that means an entity must have
>>>>two
>>>>states, one before and one after the benefit for such a measurement to
>>>>be
>>>>possible. Before existence there is no such state.
>>>
>>> How do you want us to believe that something about "Before existence"
>>> prevents beings from benefitting from lives they clearly appear to be
>>> benefitting from?

>>
>>They're not,

>
> What do you want us to think is preventing them from doing what they
> clearly
> appear to be doing?


They aren't doing it.

>>they are benefitting from positive circumstances.


Right

>>
>>>>> So far you
>>>>> have never been able to explain, so of course neither you nor I nor
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> else
>>>>> has any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. That being
>>>>> the
>>>>> case it
>>>>> continues to appear this is just something else you're trying to lie
>>>>> about
>>>>> in an
>>>>> attempt to support acceptance of elimination.
>>>>
>>>>I just explained it
>>>
>>> No you did not. All you did was make a claim that something about
>>> "Before
>>> existence" prevents animals from benefitting from lives they clearly
>>> appear to
>>> be benefitting from, but you can never explain what you want us to think
>>> does so
>>> or how you want us to think anything does so.

>>
>>I get it, you're TOO STUPID to grasp basic logic.

>
> LOL! No you don't get it either. IT is that you're TOO STUPID to tell
> us
> what you want us to think about pre-existence prevents us from benefitting
> from
> our own existence. Try explaining it now. GO:


See above
>
>
>>> . . .
>>>>>>"consideration" has never helped a single animal, never will, and
>>>>>>cannot.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast to that lie what you are afraid of is that considering
>>>>> the
>>>>> lives
>>>>> of the animals they consume would cause more people to favor decent AW
>>>>> over
>>>>> elimination, causing them to become more conscientious consumers of
>>>>> animal
>>>>> products instead of vegans.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not afraid of that because it's an absurdity. Nobody consumes meat
>>>>because it means livestock "get to experience life", not you, not me,
>>>>nobody.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't necessarily mean many people would stop being vegan in
>>> order to
>>> contribute to lives of positive value with their lifestyle. As you
>>> suggest
>>> most
>>> would be too selfish to consider anything like that and they are only
>>> vegan
>>> because they don't like meat, not in any real attempt to try to help
>>> livestock.

>>
>>That paragraph is false, misleading and misguided on a number of levels.
>>First, consuming meat is not a prerequisite for contributing to better
>>lives
>>for livestock.

>
> They would have to buy things that contribute to decent lives for
> livestock
> even if they throw the products in the trash in front of the grocery
> store, or
> just leave them sitting with the cashier after paying for them.


No, they could write to manufacturers, restaurant chains, politicians,
participate or contribute to AW campaigns. All things that you have never
done and never will do.

>>Second there is no reason to believe that vegetarians are
>>more selfish than meat eaters.

>
> There certainly is reason to consider supposedly ethical veg*ns to be
> more
> selfish, and any other people who have anti-consideration for the lives of
> livestock IF there are any other people. I doubt there are though. LOL...
> It
> sure would be stupid for any meat consumer to oppose consideration for the
> lives
> of livestock. LOL...such a person would have to be incredibly stupid IF
> there is
> such a person. A person that stupid would probably be unable to
> participate in
> any ngs.


Are you really as dense as you appear?

>
>>Finally, consuming animal products does not
>>"help livestock".

>
> In contrast to that lie, everything that helps livestock is also
> dependant
> upon people consuming them


Consuming livestock doesn't help them.

Here your dishonest tactic, probably unconsciously, is to equivocate (a word
you don't understand) between livestock as species and livestock as
individual animals. Livestock *species* are helped by being in demand as
sources of meat, not individual animals. Individual animals, by the time
they are in a position to be "helped", already exist.

The debate here however *is not* whether it is right to help domestic
livestock species to succeed, that is irrelevant, it is about how we treat
animals and what kinds of lives they are provided *if* they are brought into
existence.

>>You're just spinning your wheels with these stupid
>>assumptions.

>
> In contrast to your lie above, being vegan does nothing to help
> livestock.
> Being vegan contributes to deliberate death, but not life, for any
> animals.


Consuming meat contributes to animals being killed by meat packers. As I
said above the fact that it promotes the continuation of those species is
not a legitimate moral question and not what we should be talking about.

>>In fact I would say many vegetarians *would* like to eat meat
>>except that feel they can't for ethical reasons.

>
> Because they don't want to contribute to life of any quality for
> livestock,
> which could ONLY be for selfish reasons and NOT out of consideration for
> any
> livestock. DUH!!!


That's the reason YOU eat meat, selfishness.

>
>>> But there are those few who either have no personal aversion to
>>> eating
>>> meat
>>> or even like it, but (again) they have been fooled into believing
>>> veganism
>>> is
>>> ethically supreme. THOSE are the people who should learn to appreciate
>>> when
>>> livestock have lives of positive value so they can be more conscientious
>>> consumers of animal products and contribute to decent lives for
>>> livestock
>>> with
>>> their lifestyle instead of doing nothing. People in favor of elimination
>>> refuse
>>> to consider the animals for selfish personal reasons and will just never
>>> consider them, and as you demonstrate some of the more extreme are
>>> maniacally
>>> opposed to seeing people consider the animals. But some of us do in
>>> spite
>>> of you
>>> which is why cage free eggs are available, and why we pay extra to
>>> support
>>> cage
>>> free lives for laying hens and encourage other people to do so also.

>>
>>That's considering the "conditions" animals are provided, not the bullshit
>>"consider their lives"

>
> It all works together as I've told you countless times.


Only in your deluded mind. In reality they have nothing to do with one
another.

>>you are trying to push.

>
> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the lives of
> livestock, as I've pointed out and we have seen countless times. NO ONE
> other
> than eliminationists has good reason to oppose considering the lives of
> the
> animals we're discussing.


Wrong, for the gazillionth time. Bogus and self-serving "consideration"
should be and is opposed by every conscientious person.





  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:59:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:13:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:53:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:422gn61ddj4dtujmoidj9fc4s4p5ndil0t@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think
>>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Logic, here's one argument:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin,
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>other has a life full of pain,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Doesn't matter,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't mean that animal living conditions don't matter to me, I mean
>>>>>that
>>>>>for the purpose of this example it doesn't matter what the reason is for
>>>>>the
>>>>>suffering,
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does.
>>>
>>>No it doesn't, the animal suffering, for whatever reason it occurs, is
>>>*stipulated*.
>>>
>>>>>the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.
>>>>
>>>> The opinion of an eliminationist as to whether or not an animal is
>>>> suffering
>>>> is of no value at all since you people believe all of them live lives of
>>>> suffering and I do not.
>>>
>>>I'm not a <felch> "eliminationist", but even if I were, the animals in
>>>this
>>>argument are *stipulated* to be suffering.
>>>
>>>Do you even understand the word "stipulate"?

>>
>> You're trying to get me to take your word for something you apparently
>> don't
>> have any idea about. What I've done is establish the fact that you have no
>> idea
>> which I correctly predicted, but you had to show me before I could be
>> sure. You
>> did.

>
>Some livestock suffer, right? They have "lives of negative value", right?
>Those are the ones I'm talking about.


You people think it's true for all livestock and that none of them have
lives of positive value.

>This is not hard.


It's impossible for you to evaluate whether or not it's cruel to the animals
for humans to raise them for food.

>>>>>>>anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard to
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>> pigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all they
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> pigs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit,
>>>>
>>>> If they never know anything different, there's no reason to believe
>>>> that
>>>> living on concrete makes life of negative value for them.
>>>
>>>That's not what I meant, but that is also debatable.

>>
>> I'm convinced that it varies from one animal to the next, and has very
>> much
>> to do with whether or not the animal has sores or other injuries.

>
>Right, therefore you DO know what I'm talking about,


Better than you ever will.

>contrary to your
>felching above.
>
>
>>>>>pigs are clean animals, if given the opportunity they will always
>>>>>keep their bedding and mess areas separate.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't stop them from making a mess, because whatever they have
>>>> for
>>>> bedding they will want to root through looking for food, which usually
>>>> is
>>>> going
>>>> to end up getting it mixed in with their shit and also their food.
>>>
>>>Because they don't have enough space and/or their areas are not kept
>>>clean.
>>>Given a sleeping area, a feeding area and a clear area, they will shit and
>>>**** in the clear area and not spread it into their bedding or food.

>>
>> I said they would spread their bedding around rooting for food, not
>> that
>> they would spread their shit around. You can't handle even the most basic
>> of
>> details, yet you want me to take your word on things I know you don't
>> understand
>> and even about things I know damn well you're wrong about.

>
>I said that pigs


You lie that having consideration for the lives of other creatures is
sophistry...

>are clean animals, given the opportunity. It's a fact.
>>
>>>I've raised pigs,

>>
>> I disbelieve you.

>
>I don't give a flying **** what redneck cracker goober cockfighting shitbags
>believe.


....and by that reaction and other things I know that you lied when you said you
raised pigs. I also know you lied when you said you raised cattle, and you lied
when you said you had children.

>> In contrast to that I did raise some pigs...one sow who
>> had several litters. We raised some of her young to slaughter and eat, and
>> sold
>> the rest. I was in high school at the time and my parents bought the feed
>> for my
>> sow in exchange for two pigs from each litter, which we raised to about
>> 100
>> pounds, killed and butchered ourselves, and all ate.
>>
>>>they're clean animals if given the opportunity. Pigs in filthy
>>>conditions will suffer, not only from poor health.
>>>
>>>>>But again, this is not relevant
>>>>>to my point.
>>>>
>>>> It's all relevant. You just can't appreciate details enough to
>>>> understand
>>>> why.
>>>
>>>It's not relevant, you're just suffering from cognitive dissonance (CD).

>>
>> LOL! No you poor fool, it's the guy who can't handle the details, which
>> is
>> you, who are experiencing CD. Not the person presenting the details.

>
>You're not "presenting details",


Taking the animals' lives into consideration is a NECESSARY part of
evaluating whether life has positive or negative value to them. That's a very
significant basic aspect of the situation that eliminationists can not
comprehend.

>you're blowing smoke out of your ass.


You're either too stupid to comprehend why the animals' lives are important
in regards to the animals, or you're dishonestly pretending to be too stupid.

>>>Your brain on some level sees that this destroys your argument so is
>>>throwing up meaningless defenses against it.

>>
>> In contrast to that I'm considering more details than you can handle,
>> and
>> that's pretty much as "far" as it looks like it can ever get for you.

>
>Your "considering", like your "consideration" is bogus.


It's only impossible for eliminationists, but all the rest of it can do it.

>>>>>>>>>suffering
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's say a tail infection. That doesn't make life of negative
>>>>>> value
>>>>>> still,
>>>>>> I hope.
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope also,
>>>>
>>>> Maybe.
>>>
>>>Don't be ridiculous, nobody who has ever posted here wants animals to
>>>suffer.
>>>
>>>>>but again, not relevant to the point.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to that, if it's the case then it destroys your point.
>>>
>>>Why? I didn't say anything about a tail infection. Is it your contention
>>>that NO livestock suffer,

>>
>> You know it's not, and I know you know it's not.

>
>Then why are you refusing to stipulate it?


You can't do it, so I will. The pig has a fractured leg and is in constant
pain, and since it's in a weakened condition the other pigs attack and abuse it
also. That pig has a life of negative value at this time, but as long as it has
the benefit of life the value of its life can change.

In the above I referred to two different things with the word life. If
you're too stupid to figure out which is which and when, then you are just
mentally unfit to discuss this topic. If you are not too stupid to figure it out
but pretend to be, then you are still unfit to discuss it.

>>>EVER? If so, you're an idiot, if not, then the
>>>ones which do suffer are the ones I am talking about. Those animals who
>>>do
>>>suffer *experience life* in the same measure as the ones who don't.
>>>Therefore *experiencing life* is not what creates value,

>>
>> It can have positive or negative value, as I've pointed out to you
>> countless
>> times.

>
>It's conditions (circumstances) that create positive or negative value. Life
>itself is a constant.


In that respect it's a benefit, since without it nothing else can be either.
That fact is another one you're either too stupid to comprehend, or you are
dishonestly pretending to be too stupid to comprehend.

>>>it is a constant
>>>among ALL animals.

>>
>> And should be taken into consideration for ALL creatures, instead of
>> none as
>> eliminationists insist.

>
>If life itself apart from circumstances is a constant then it doesn't matter
>whether we consider it all cases or no cases. If we consider it in all cases
>then what do we do about the case of lives of negative value? What does this
>"consideration" tell us then?


LOL! You really are showing you true colors now. I should milk this for a
while but I'll tell you: We should change conditions so animals don't suffer but
instead have lives of positive value.

>>>>>>>>>and deprivation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from,
>>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>>theoretical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll just forget that one since the concrete was covered above.
>>>>>> Life
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> seems like it may have positive value to Salatin.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sigh, you are obviously missing the point.
>>>>
>>>> No, I asked you for details to establish whether you had a point or
>>>> not. It
>>>> turns out in this case you don't.
>>>
>>>The point has been made very clear,

>>
>> You couldn't even provide an example, much less make a point with it.
>> Even
>> if you had though, since nothing can benefit after it's dead, and nothing
>> that's
>> not alive can benefit at all, it will always remain clear that life is one
>> of
>> the benefits which makes all others possible regardless of how you try to
>> lie
>> that it's not.

>
>Life makes benefits possible, it isn't a benefit itself. That's impossible.
>
>> . . .
>>>>>> It's a benefit which makes all others possible
>>>>>
>>>>>Calling it a benefit is begging the question, I have shown that it
>>>>>isn't,
>>>>>as
>>>>>have others.
>>>>
>>>> You have simply claimed that it's not without being able to even
>>>> attempt to
>>>> explain what you want people to believe prevents it from being one.
>>>
>>>It's been explained to you probably a thousand times. A benefit means "an
>>>improvement to the welfare of an entity", that means an entity must have
>>>two
>>>states, one before and one after the benefit for such a measurement to be
>>>possible. Before existence there is no such state.

>>
>> How do you want us to believe that something about "Before existence"
>> prevents beings from benefitting from lives they clearly appear to be
>> benefitting from?

>
>They're not,


What do you want us to think is preventing them from doing what they clearly
appear to be doing?

>they are benefitting from positive circumstances.
>
>>>> So far you
>>>> have never been able to explain, so of course neither you nor I nor
>>>> anyone
>>>> else
>>>> has any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. That being the
>>>> case it
>>>> continues to appear this is just something else you're trying to lie
>>>> about
>>>> in an
>>>> attempt to support acceptance of elimination.
>>>
>>>I just explained it

>>
>> No you did not. All you did was make a claim that something about
>> "Before
>> existence" prevents animals from benefitting from lives they clearly
>> appear to
>> be benefitting from, but you can never explain what you want us to think
>> does so
>> or how you want us to think anything does so.

>
>I get it, you're TOO STUPID to grasp basic logic.


LOL! No you don't get it either. IT is that you're TOO STUPID to tell us
what you want us to think about pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from
our own existence. Try explaining it now. GO:


>> . . .
>>>>>"consideration" has never helped a single animal, never will, and
>>>>>cannot.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to that lie what you are afraid of is that considering
>>>> the
>>>> lives
>>>> of the animals they consume would cause more people to favor decent AW
>>>> over
>>>> elimination, causing them to become more conscientious consumers of
>>>> animal
>>>> products instead of vegans.
>>>
>>>I'm not afraid of that because it's an absurdity. Nobody consumes meat
>>>because it means livestock "get to experience life", not you, not me,
>>>nobody.

>>
>> It wouldn't necessarily mean many people would stop being vegan in
>> order to
>> contribute to lives of positive value with their lifestyle. As you suggest
>> most
>> would be too selfish to consider anything like that and they are only
>> vegan
>> because they don't like meat, not in any real attempt to try to help
>> livestock.

>
>That paragraph is false, misleading and misguided on a number of levels.
>First, consuming meat is not a prerequisite for contributing to better lives
>for livestock.


They would have to buy things that contribute to decent lives for livestock
even if they throw the products in the trash in front of the grocery store, or
just leave them sitting with the cashier after paying for them.

>Second there is no reason to believe that vegetarians are
>more selfish than meat eaters.


There certainly is reason to consider supposedly ethical veg*ns to be more
selfish, and any other people who have anti-consideration for the lives of
livestock IF there are any other people. I doubt there are though. LOL... It
sure would be stupid for any meat consumer to oppose consideration for the lives
of livestock. LOL...such a person would have to be incredibly stupid IF there is
such a person. A person that stupid would probably be unable to participate in
any ngs.

>Finally, consuming animal products does not
>"help livestock".


In contrast to that lie, everything that helps livestock is also dependant
upon people consuming them

>You're just spinning your wheels with these stupid
>assumptions.


In contrast to your lie above, being vegan does nothing to help livestock.
Being vegan contributes to deliberate death, but not life, for any animals.

>In fact I would say many vegetarians *would* like to eat meat
>except that feel they can't for ethical reasons.


Because they don't want to contribute to life of any quality for livestock,
which could ONLY be for selfish reasons and NOT out of consideration for any
livestock. DUH!!!

>> But there are those few who either have no personal aversion to eating
>> meat
>> or even like it, but (again) they have been fooled into believing veganism
>> is
>> ethically supreme. THOSE are the people who should learn to appreciate
>> when
>> livestock have lives of positive value so they can be more conscientious
>> consumers of animal products and contribute to decent lives for livestock
>> with
>> their lifestyle instead of doing nothing. People in favor of elimination
>> refuse
>> to consider the animals for selfish personal reasons and will just never
>> consider them, and as you demonstrate some of the more extreme are
>> maniacally
>> opposed to seeing people consider the animals. But some of us do in spite
>> of you
>> which is why cage free eggs are available, and why we pay extra to support
>> cage
>> free lives for laying hens and encourage other people to do so also.

>
>That's considering the "conditions" animals are provided, not the bullshit
>"consider their lives"


It all works together as I've told you countless times.

>you are trying to push.


ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the lives of
livestock, as I've pointed out and we have seen countless times. NO ONE other
than eliminationists has good reason to oppose considering the lives of the
animals we're discussing.
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
Hindu Ethics - 5 Reasons to be a vegetarian and 10 arguments against eating meat Dr. Jai Maharaj[_2_] Vegan 0 15-06-2015 05:54 PM
Hindu Ethics - Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian & Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 0 31-12-2011 06:56 AM
Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat dh@. Vegan 12 01-03-2011 11:02 PM
Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat Tim923[_2_] Vegan 3 28-02-2011 02:58 AM
Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian, and Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat The Undead Edward M. Kennedy Vegan 0 23-02-2011 10:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"