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
  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-04-2012, 08:22 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:42:59 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:28:05 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] 4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, "Dutch"
wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch"
wrote:

Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
suffering"
and
"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock
animals".

Consideration of suffering is considering a negative
aspect.

Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention.
Positive
situations are already just fine as they are.

The other
considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing
it
all
these
years.

It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive
aspect",
and
it
clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's
a
necessary
part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

Explain why it is necessary.

Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact
that
you
can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another
one
of
the ways
that you reveal yourself

Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation.
An
explanation involves giving reasons.

Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one,
there
aren't
any.

There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
influence
on
animals.

You keep saying its significant but you can't say how

It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.

No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
existing
in the first place,

That's what's significant,


Right, so what?


So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat if we feel that the
animals have lives of positive value even though you people want everyone
to
believe:

"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"


That made no sense.



and refusing to consider that aspect of the
situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all
livestock
eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to
consider
the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering
the
big
picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.


You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
picture.


I'm pointing out significant things that eliminationists don't want
people
to take into consideration because they work against the elimination
objective.


You're not seeing anything significant.

our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of
positive
value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they
get
out of it"

ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
when AW
is successful


I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.


It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.


It does nothing.



and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not
legally
regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist
has
reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over
elimination
has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your
opposition
to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.


I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.


It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.


It does nothing.




  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2012, 04:53 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 4/23/2012 2:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:28:05 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message news
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, wrote:

Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
suffering"
and
"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".

Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.

Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
situations are already just fine as they are.

The other
considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
all
these
years.

It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
and
it
clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
necessary
part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

Explain why it is necessary.

Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
you
can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
of
the ways
that you reveal yourself

Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
explanation involves giving reasons.

Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
aren't
any.

There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
influence
on
animals.

You keep saying its significant but you can't say how

It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.


No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing
in the first place,


That's what's significant,


That is *NOT* morally significant in any way - not to the animals, not
to us. It has a *practical* significance to us; it has *NO*
significance to the animals. The animals don't care that they exist,
they don't "benefit" from coming into existence.

There is nothing to consider regarding the animals' existence.


our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive
value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they get
out of it"


ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens when AW
is successful,


Animals "getting to experience life" has no significance - not to them.
  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2012, 11:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:42:59 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:28:05 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] .com...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
news:52amo71tt4mtrdnhi7snb2o667ock1h7io @4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, "Dutch"
wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch"
wrote:

Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
suffering"
and
"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock
animals".

Consideration of suffering is considering a negative
aspect.

Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention.
Positive
situations are already just fine as they are.

The other
considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing
it
all
these
years.

It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive
aspect",
and
it
clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's
a
necessary
part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

Explain why it is necessary.

Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact
that
you
can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another
one
of
the ways
that you reveal yourself

Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation.
An
explanation involves giving reasons.

Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one,
there
aren't
any.

There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
influence
on
animals.

You keep saying its significant but you can't say how

It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.

No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
existing
in the first place,

That's what's significant,

Right, so what?


So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat if we feel that the
animals have lives of positive value even though you people want everyone
to
believe:

"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"


That made no sense.


It's your quote regardless of how stupid it seems to you.

and refusing to consider that aspect of the
situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all
livestock
eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to
consider
the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering
the
big
picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.

You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
picture.


I'm pointing out significant things that eliminationists don't want
people
to take into consideration because they work against the elimination
objective.


You're not seeing anything significant.


The lives of the animlas humans kill deserve as much or more consideration
than their deaths.

our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of
positive
value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they
get
out of it"

ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
when AW
is successful

I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.


It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.


It does nothing.


That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know it.

and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not
legally
regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist
has
reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over
elimination
has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your
opposition
to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.

I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.


It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.


It does nothing.


That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know it.
  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2012, 11:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:53:49 -0700, Goo wrote:

On 4/23/2012 2:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:28:05 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message news On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, wrote:

Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
suffering"
and
"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".

Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.

Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
situations are already just fine as they are.

The other
considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
all
these
years.

It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
and
it
clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
necessary
part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

Explain why it is necessary.

Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
you
can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
of
the ways
that you reveal yourself

Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
explanation involves giving reasons.

Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
aren't
any.

There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
influence
on
animals.

You keep saying its significant but you can't say how

It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.

No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing
in the first place,


That's what's significant,


That is *NOT* morally significant in any way


It's worthy of as much or more consideration that their deaths Goo, and of
course it's more from my pov. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
consideratoin and appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
value for millions of livestock animals. In fact ONLY eliminationist have reason
to oppose consideration and appreciation for anything and everything that
results in lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals. Your
opposition to appreciating those situations is one of the ways you reveal
yourself, Goob.
  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2012, 12:52 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 4/30/2012 3:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:42:59 -0700, wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:28:05 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:09:03 -0700,
wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700,
wrote:

Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
suffering"
and
"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock
animals".

Consideration of suffering is considering a negative
aspect.

Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention.
Positive
situations are already just fine as they are.

The other
considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing
it
all
these
years.

It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive
aspect",
and
it
clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's
a
necessary
part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

Explain why it is necessary.

Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact
that
you
can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another
one
of
the ways
that you reveal yourself

Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation.
An
explanation involves giving reasons.

Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one,
there
aren't
any.

There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
influence
on
animals.

You keep saying its significant but you can't say how

It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.

No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
existing
in the first place,

That's what's significant,

Right, so what?

So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat if we feel that the
animals have lives of positive value even though you people want everyone
to
believe:

"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"


That made no sense.


It's your quote


No.


and refusing to consider that aspect of the
situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all
livestock
eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to
consider
the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering
the
big
picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.

You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
picture.

I'm pointing out significant things that eliminationists don't want
people
to take into consideration because they work against the elimination
objective.


You're not seeing anything significant.


The lives of the animlas humans kill deserve as much or more consideration


They deserve zero consideration. "Getting to experience life" is
meaningless.


our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of
positive
value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they
get
out of it"

ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
when AW
is successful

I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.


It does nothing.


That's a blatant lie since


It's not a lie; it's the truth. "Providing life" is ethically meaningless.


and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not
legally
regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist
has
reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over
elimination
has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your
opposition
to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.

I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.


It does nothing.


That's a blatant lie since


Not a lie.


  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2012, 12:54 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon (cockfighting), lied:


Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
suffering"
and
"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".

Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.

Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
situations are already just fine as they are.

The other
considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
all
these
years.

It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
and
it
clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.

In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
necessary
part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.

Explain why it is necessary.

Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
you
can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
of
the ways
that you reveal yourself

Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
explanation involves giving reasons.

Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
aren't
any.

There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
influence
on
animals.

You keep saying its significant but you can't say how

It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.

No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing
in the first place,

That's what's significant,


That is *NOT* morally significant in any way - not to the animals, not to us.
It has a *practical* significance to us; it has *NO* significance to the animals.
The animals don't care that they exist, they don't "benefit" from coming into existence.


It's worthy of as much or more consideration


It is not worthy of any consideration at all. It's meaningless.
  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2012, 05:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 4/30/2012 3:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
///


How many times have you been arrested for involvement in illegal animal
combat activities such as cockfighting or dogfighting?
  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2012, 06:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.


It does nothing.


That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know
it.


It doesn't do what you think it does, you're deluding yourself.


  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2012, 05:25 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 5/1/2012 10:26 AM, Dutch wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I
oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

It suggests that providing lives of positive value

It does nothing.


That's a blatant lie since


It doesn't do what you think it does, you're deluding yourself.


It doesn't do anything. Causing animals to exist - or "get to
experience life" - doesn't do anything for them. "Providing life" for
farm animals is meaningless.

  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2012, 05:32 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

****wit David Harrison - convicted for breeding fighting dogs - lied:




There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
influence on animals.

You keep saying its significant but you can't say how

It allows billions of animals to get to experience life.


No significance.



No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
existing in the first place,

That's what's significant,


Not significant.



Right, so what?

So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat


We have no ethical reason to want animals to "get to experience life".



"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"


That made no sense.


It's your quote


It's not a quote.


and refusing to consider that aspect of the
situation


Nothing to consider.



You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
picture.

I'm pointing out significant things


No. You're blabbering about things with no significance at all.



You're not seeing anything significant.


The lives of the animlas humans kill deserve as much or more consideration


They deserve no consideration - zero. It is not important in any way
that livestock animals "get to experience life". This has been proved.


our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of
positive value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering
what they get out of it"


They get *nothing* "out of it."


ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
when AW is successful


"when AW is successful" - bullshit cracker-speak. That's just vomit.


I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

It suggests that providing lives


It's meaningless.



It does nothing.


That's a blatant lie since


It's not a lie. Causing animals to "get to experience life", which is
all you care about, is ethically meaningless. Proved.


  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2012, 05:25 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.

It does nothing.


That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know
it.


It doesn't do what you think it does


It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to it.
  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2012, 05:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 5/3/2012 9:25 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:26:36 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, wrote:


I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
anything.

It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to
it.

It does nothing.

That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know
it.


It doesn't do what you think it does


It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior


All you care about is that the animals exist. You don't care about
"decent lives", all you want is for them to exist so you can consume them.

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


You only care about the products and services they provide - mainly
meat, but also disgusting animal combats that you enjoy watching.



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
Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism George Plimpton Vegan 42 02-10-2013 09:23 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 21 29-07-2008 10:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 1 09-07-2008 04:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" [email protected] Vegan 1 01-07-2008 05:38 PM
A exceptionally stupid "vegan", "Michael Bluejay" Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 6 15-02-2008 12:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 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