Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-01-2012, 12:12 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default How cruel is leather?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
extent,
since
you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
do.

That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
arguments
because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.

I sure doubt that of course

Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.

You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
let's
not forget that part.


My objection to the LoL is that it is a circular,
irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.


ONLY from an eliminationist pov.


No, from a logical and rational point of view.

It's bullshit David, always has been, always will be.



  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-01-2012, 01:24 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default How cruel is leather?

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
extent,
since
you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to do.

That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
arguments
because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.

I sure doubt that of course

Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.


You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
let's
not forget that part.


My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
lives of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.


ONLY from an eliminationist pov. From the pov of anyone who favors decent AW
over elimination that particular result is a very significant aspect of human
influence on animals, even when it's more because of the consideration of the
farmer than actual AW laws and regulations.

since you reveal yourself as an eliminationist
frequently.

I never do.


LOL! Just making use of your favorite insulting term for appreciation
of
lives of positive value reveals you, since ONLY an eliminationist would
have
reason to use an insulting term for it. Duh.


...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value
for livestock] is a transparent euphemism and a deliberate
deception. ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
value for livestock] is an attempt to make the lives of animals an issue in
favor of raising them. It is circular, illegitimate reasoning.


LOL!!! It's just another aspect of human influence on animals that you
happen to hate because and ONLY because it works against the elimination
obsession. Duh!

As I've pointed out many times, referring to appreciation for lives
of positive value as the LoL is an attempt at insult that ONLY an
eliminationist
would have any reason to attempt. Opposing consideration of those same
lives is
again something that ONLY an eliminationist would have reason to do.
Certainly
NO ONE who truly favors decent AW over elimination has any reason to do
those
things, and as we've seen from Etter and Ward Clark even people who
don't
care
much if anything about AW don't have any reason to oppose the
consideration I
suggest. They said they didn't agree, but they made no attempt at all to
oppose
the idea.

They both tried to tell you you were crazy, as have numerous others, but
you
won't listen.

"appreciation for lives of positive value" and "consideration" are self
serving bullshit sophisms.

Your position is a total lie.


ONLY an eliminationist would have reason to be restricted to that level
of
ignorance because only an eliminationist would be unable to develop that
sort of
appreciation. Instead, IF such a person were to try, it might make him
feel
"dirty" or something like that which wouldn't apply to a normal person.


You know the names of all the avowed antis who have tried to get you off
this kick,


There have been none. Feral doesn't count for shit. Ward Clark and Rick
Etter said they didn't agree with me, and that's as far as they ever would go
with it so they never tried to get me off anything. They don't care about AW,
only about opposing the misnomer. In contrast to that ALL the people who had an
interest in AW agreed with me including Marl and Poly from an antielimination
group, and Katy who was an actual agriculture student at the time, and a few
other AW minded people I forget the names of, and of course Didderot and he
alone would have been enough for me. ALL! the real AW people agreed with me,
which btw is ANOTHER WAY I can tell you're not in favor of AW over the misnomer.
All the people who actually are, and who are the people I respect, have agreed.

how can you possibly still play this stupid "eliminationist"
strawman?

...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value for
livestock] isn't "appreciation",


Not for eliminationists of course but for people who favor AW it certain is.

it's just a bad idea.


LOL!!! Certainly not for anyone who honestly favors decent AW over
elimination.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-01-2012, 11:04 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default How cruel is leather?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
extent,
since
you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
do.

That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
arguments
because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.

I sure doubt that of course

Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.

You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do,
so
let's
not forget that part.

My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
lives
of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.

ONLY from an eliminationist pov.


No


Yes.


No, "having appreciation" is meaningless, self-serving lip service. The
proof is evident, you cannot describe even a theoretical animal who ever
benefitted from it.




  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-01-2012, 11:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default How cruel is leather?

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
extent,
since
you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
do.

That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
arguments
because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.

I sure doubt that of course

Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.

You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
let's
not forget that part.

My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives

of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.


ONLY from an eliminationist pov.


No


Yes. We've seen that to be the case.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default How cruel is leather?

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
extent,
since
you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
do.

That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
arguments
because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.

I sure doubt that of course

Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.

You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
let's
not forget that part.

My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives
of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.

ONLY from an eliminationist pov.

No


Yes. We've seen that to be the case.


No


Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose having
appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value for
livestock. If you think any other group does, then try to explain who they are
and why. Go:


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-01-2012, 06:11 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default How cruel is leather?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

You used to and of course my guess is you still do to
whatever
extent,
since
you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason
to
do.

That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
arguments
because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.

I sure doubt that of course

Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.

You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do,
so
let's
not forget that part.

My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
lives
of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.

ONLY from an eliminationist pov.

No

Yes. We've seen that to be the case.


No


Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose the
LoL.


That's a lie and you know it.



  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2012, 12:06 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default How cruel is leather?

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
lives of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.

ONLY from an eliminationist pov.

No

Yes. We've seen that to be the case.

No


Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value
for livestock.]


That's a lie and you know it.


LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who are in
favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when decent
AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just describing your
position is hilarious!
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2012, 04:31 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default How cruel is leather?


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results
in
lives of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.

ONLY from an eliminationist pov.

No

Yes. We've seen that to be the case.

No

Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
value
for livestock.]


That's a lie and you know it.


LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who
are in
favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when
decent
AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just describing
your
position is hilarious!


A paragraph full of ****wit-isms.


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-01-2012, 01:35 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default How cruel is leather?

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:31:55 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...

We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
value
for livestock.]

That's a lie and you know it.


LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who
are in
favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when
decent
AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just describing
your
position is hilarious!


A paragraph full of ****wit-isms.


Your moronic position is no less hilarious for that lame remark.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-01-2012, 06:09 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default How cruel is leather?


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:31:55 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
m...

We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
value
for livestock.]

That's a lie and you know it.

LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who
are in
favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when
decent
AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just
describing
your
position is hilarious!


A paragraph full of ****wit-isms.


Your moronic position is no less hilarious for that lame remark.


You really are a sad case.




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
How cruel is leather? [email protected] Vegan 46 18-01-2012 06:08 AM
How cruel is leather? [email protected] Vegan 8 03-01-2012 12:01 AM
Hermes Belt Black/Tan leather,Pure leather,Top quality,on sale [email protected] General Cooking 0 23-04-2008 06:00 AM
Monogram Canvas,Mini,Damier Canvas,Epi leather,Multicolor,MonogramVernis,Denim,Suhali Leather purse General Cooking 0 23-02-2008 02:15 AM
Cruel Irony modom (palindrome guy)[_2_] General Cooking 16 20-08-2007 05:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 AM.

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