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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2011, 12:24 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:28:31 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:00:15 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] .com...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.

By you

LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.

. . .
invalid dichotomy


Explain how you want people to try to pretend it is. Go:


Non-parallel

"Decent AW"...relates a scenario where
livestock animals are...bred

.. . .
"elimination" ... relates to a scenario where no animals are bred


Then the choice between the two lifestyles isn't a dichotomy at all, not a
false one. BTW it's also not a kangaroo or a tv dinner, both of which are
equally significant to it not being a dichotomy or an invalid dichotomy either,
which is no significance at all.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-12-2011, 02:51 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:28:31 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:00:15 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another
one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but
the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it
was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination.
Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.

By you

LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.
. . .
invalid dichotomy

Explain how you want people to try to pretend it is. Go:


Non-parallel

"Decent AW"...relates a scenario where
livestock animals are...bred

. . .
"elimination" ... relates to a scenario where no animals are bred


Then the choice between the two lifestyles isn't a dichotomy at all,
not a
false one


You offer it as a dichotomy ("A over B"), it's false for the reasons I
stated. The whole premise is fake, a very sloppy attempt at sleight of
hand..




  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2011, 10:59 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:51:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:28:31 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:00:15 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] 4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another
one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you,
but
the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've
been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it
was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination.
Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.

By you

LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.
. . .
invalid dichotomy

Explain how you want people to try to pretend it is. Go:

Non-parallel

"Decent AW"...relates a scenario where
livestock animals are...bred
. . .
"elimination" ... relates to a scenario where no animals are bred

Then the choice between the two lifestyles isn't a dichotomy at all,
not a
false one


You offer it as a dichotomy ("A over B"), it's false for the reasons I
stated.


What a blatant lie that is. It's a true choice and not false for any
reasons, much less any reasons you can come up with.

The whole premise is fake, a very sloppy attempt at sleight of
hand..


Why do you contemptibly want people to falsley believe they can't
deliberately contribute to decent AW situations with their lifestlye,
instead of
deliberately trying not to?


I didn't, but both those alternatives are contingent on making the choice to
be a consumer of animal products. A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock unless he chooses to
campaign for AW, which some do, in which case his connection is a positive
one.

"Contributing to decent AW situations" is *only* a necessary moral
responsibility of consumers of animal products.

You're blowing smoke and I don't think you even realize it.



  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-12-2011, 12:11 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:51:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:28:31 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:00:15 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another
one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but
the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it
was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination.
Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.

By you

LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.
. . .
invalid dichotomy

Explain how you want people to try to pretend it is. Go:

Non-parallel

"Decent AW"...relates a scenario where
livestock animals are...bred

. . .
"elimination" ... relates to a scenario where no animals are bred


Then the choice between the two lifestyles isn't a dichotomy at all,
not a
false one


You offer it as a dichotomy ("A over B"), it's false for the reasons I
stated.


What a blatant lie that is. It's a true choice and not false for any
reasons, much less any reasons you can come up with.

The whole premise is fake, a very sloppy attempt at sleight of
hand..


Why do you contemptibly want people to falsley believe they can't
deliberately contribute to decent AW situations with their lifestlye, instead of
deliberately trying not to?
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-12-2011, 12:52 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:51:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:28:31 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:00:15 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:bvagd7drjll6ds6nvounhd5a31ltl21mu ...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's
another
one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you,
but
the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've
been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if
it
was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination.
Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.

By you

LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.
. . .
invalid dichotomy

Explain how you want people to try to pretend it is. Go:

Non-parallel

"Decent AW"...relates a scenario where
livestock animals are...bred
. . .
"elimination" ... relates to a scenario where no animals are bred

Then the choice between the two lifestyles isn't a dichotomy at
all,
not a
false one

You offer it as a dichotomy ("A over B"), it's false for the reasons I
stated.

What a blatant lie that is. It's a true choice and not false for any
reasons, much less any reasons you can come up with.

The whole premise is fake, a very sloppy attempt at sleight of
hand..

Why do you contemptibly want people to falsley believe they can't
deliberately contribute to decent AW situations with their lifestlye,
instead of
deliberately trying not to?


I didn't,


You do.


No I don't, you are being confused by your own equivocations.

but both those alternatives are contingent on making the choice to
be a consumer of animal products. A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock


They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle


Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.

but
veganism does nothing for livestock.


That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower factory
lines, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.








  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-12-2011, 01:52 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:51:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:28:31 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:00:15 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] .com...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:bvagd7drjll6ds6nvounhd5a31ltl21mua @4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another
one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you,
but
the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've
been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it
was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination.
Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.

By you

LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.
. . .
invalid dichotomy

Explain how you want people to try to pretend it is. Go:

Non-parallel

"Decent AW"...relates a scenario where
livestock animals are...bred
. . .
"elimination" ... relates to a scenario where no animals are bred

Then the choice between the two lifestyles isn't a dichotomy at all,
not a
false one

You offer it as a dichotomy ("A over B"), it's false for the reasons I
stated.


What a blatant lie that is. It's a true choice and not false for any
reasons, much less any reasons you can come up with.

The whole premise is fake, a very sloppy attempt at sleight of
hand..


Why do you contemptibly want people to falsley believe they can't
deliberately contribute to decent AW situations with their lifestlye,
instead of
deliberately trying not to?


I didn't,


You do.

but both those alternatives are contingent on making the choice to
be a consumer of animal products. A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock


They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle, but
veganism does nothing for livestock.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2011, 11:51 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock

They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle


Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.


"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"

but veganism does nothing for livestock.


That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower factory
lines


More likely it would go the other way.

, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.


"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"


Thanks for pasting in my points, too bad you can't grasp them.


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2011, 02:12 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock


They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle


Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.


"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"

but veganism does nothing for livestock.


That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower factory
lines


More likely it would go the other way.

, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.


"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2011, 07:27 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Default WHY VEGANISM?

Demystifying Vegan Nutrition: A Starter Guide

http://bostonvegan.org/nutrition

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2011, 09:12 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:51:08 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock

They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle

Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.

"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"

but veganism does nothing for livestock.

That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower
factory
lines

More likely it would go the other way.

, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"


Thanks for pasting in my points, too bad you can't grasp them.


They refer to how consumers influence livestock.


That's deep.




  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-12-2011, 11:37 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:51:08 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock

They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle

Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.


"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"

but veganism does nothing for livestock.

That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower factory
lines


More likely it would go the other way.

, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.


"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"


Thanks for pasting in my points, too bad you can't grasp them.


They refer to how consumers influence livestock.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2012, 10:16 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:12:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:51:08 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock

They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their
lifestyle

Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.

"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"

but veganism does nothing for livestock.

That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower
factory
lines

More likely it would go the other way.

, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"

Thanks for pasting in my points, too bad you can't grasp them.

They refer to how consumers influence livestock.


That's deep.


Not really,


I know, that was sarcasm. You are incapable of grasping any fact and logical
argument that discredits the LoL.

but if it seems so


It doesn't, it seems what it is, meaningless.

then that could explain why you can't get
"down" to the level of thinking about the animals.


I can think about the animals just fine, I don't need to get "down" to do
it.

It would be a jump up for you
in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours at
a
time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get an
idea
what life was like for them.


Is that when you decided it would be fun to raise roosters to entertain you
and your redneck buddies by fighting each other in a pen?

You might not be able to do anything like that or
appreciate it if you could, but that's why I keep suggesting you go spend
some
time checking out some local cows or something and trying. IF you ever
try, be
sure you do it alone. It would be best if there was no other human in
sight.


No amount of "appreciation" for livestock is going to make me engage in the
Logic of the Larder, which is not "appreciation" at all, it is an attempt to
use the animals' lives to mount a lame and hollow argument against vegans.


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-01-2012, 12:28 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:12:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:51:08 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

A person who consumes no animal products
has no connection to the treatment of livestock

They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle

Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.

"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"

but veganism does nothing for livestock.

That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower
factory
lines

More likely it would go the other way.

, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"

Thanks for pasting in my points, too bad you can't grasp them.


They refer to how consumers influence livestock.


That's deep.


Not really, but if it seems so then that could explain why you can't get
"down" to the level of thinking about the animals. It would be a jump up for you
in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours at a
time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get an idea
what life was like for them. You might not be able to do anything like that or
appreciate it if you could, but that's why I keep suggesting you go spend some
time checking out some local cows or something and trying. IF you ever try, be
sure you do it alone. It would be best if there was no other human in sight.
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-01-2012, 12:33 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default WHY VEGANISM?

[email protected] wrote i
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:16:56 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...

It would be a jump up for you
in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours
at
a
time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get
an
idea
what life was like for them.


Is that when you decided it would be fun to raise roosters


Nope.


When then?

to entertain you
and your redneck buddies by fighting each other in a pen?


I never cared much for the fight, but loved the birds and loved raising
them. I'm convinced they would rather fight for their life in a pit than
be hung
by their feet and have their throat slit, even if there's not a single
eliminationist in the planet with enough intelligence to comprehend how
that
could possibly be the case.


You have no way of knowing what they would or would not prefer. Your opinion
is self-serving. I imagine they would prefer to go on living. I choose to
condone ending their lives to feed my family. It is sick and depraved to
get excited watching animals rip each apart. Anyone who would do or condone
such a thing is a pariah and a criminal.

snip same old bullshit


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-01-2012, 01:55 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:16:56 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...

It would be a jump up for you
in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours at
a
time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get an
idea
what life was like for them.


Is that when you decided it would be fun to raise roosters


Nope.

to entertain you
and your redneck buddies by fighting each other in a pen?


I never cared much for the fight, but loved the birds and loved raising
them. I'm convinced they would rather fight for their life in a pit than be hung
by their feet and have their throat slit, even if there's not a single
eliminationist in the planet with enough intelligence to comprehend how that
could possibly be the case.

You might not be able to do anything like that or
appreciate it if you could, but that's why I keep suggesting you go spend
some
time checking out some local cows or something and trying. IF you ever
try, be
sure you do it alone. It would be best if there was no other human in
sight.


No amount of "appreciation" for livestock is going to make me engage in
...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value
for livestock], which is not "appreciation" at all,


That's a blatant lie ONLY an eliminationist has reason to tell.

it is an attempt to
use the animals' lives to mount a lame and hollow argument against vegans.


It's a significant part of the vegans' lame and hollow argument against meat
eaters that you don't want people to take into consideration.


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
Veganism & Atheism dmaraz Vegan 4 15-05-2007 05:12 PM
"veganism" is religion Jay Santos Vegan 43 22-03-2005 04:14 PM
"veganism" is NOT about health Jay Santos Vegan 48 21-03-2005 07:08 PM
Veganism defended Alex Chernavsky Vegan 45 17-01-2005 12:05 AM
Depression and veganism tofubar Vegan 117 19-11-2003 07:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017