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
  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-03-2012, 06:51 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 in message news
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans
spew.

Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most
self-serving
of all,


It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.


Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving


Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.



  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-03-2012, 06:53 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 in message ...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:

[email protected] wrote in message news
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,


No, he's not.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo


He doesn't advocate that people think that way.


  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 08:04 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"

Goo - ****wit David Harrison - lied:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.


No, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who have irrational and wrong notions about animals.


You say so


No.


, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.


You're saying


No.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 07:29 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, 27 Mar 2012 10:51:49 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:27 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Rupert" wrote
On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George wrote:
It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
exaltation and sanctimony.

I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
exaltation and sanctimony.

This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
conscious
awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
two
reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
death
and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
part,
there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.

They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
the
same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,

Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.

Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
of all,

It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.


Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
laying hens.


Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.


Everything is self serving to someone. Having consideration can and does
benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear selfish
and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
elimination objective.
.. . .
do you think that for some reason his brain is physically unable to
accept much less appreciate those particular situations?

As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.

There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
doesn't believe the distinction means anything.


He flip-flops like you, so I was hoping you could help him. All these years
of his life, and he still can't get it figured out. He can't even comprehend
what the distinction means, which we were doing in grade school.

  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 07:29 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, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:

[email protected] wrote in message news On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,

No, he's not.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo


He doesn't advocate that people think that way.


He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and he told
us so. LOL...you're disturbed that he revealed himself so clearly...LOL... To
you people the Goober is a hero dishonestly pretending to be anti-elimination in
his attempts to win the respect of true antis, when he's really very much in
favor of it. You admired the dishonesty so much that you're trying to get away
with it too, even though you suck worse at pretending than Goo does, and Goo sux
badly. This is only ONE of the ways the Goober has revealed himself.


  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 07:35 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, 28 Mar 2012 00:04:25 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:04:58 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

No


You say so specifically you stupid Goober.


No.


Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.

, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.


You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.


No.


Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 07:46 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"

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE Goober - lied:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

No

You say so specifically you stupid Goober.


No.


Here's a clue


No.


, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.

You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.


No.


Here's a clue for


No. What I say is that "veganism" is a logically consistent choice, not
a morally good choice, for people who confusedly fall for the "ar" tale.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 08:26 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

Having consideration can and does
benefit livestock .


Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.

  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-03-2012, 08:27 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 in message ...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:

[email protected] wrote in message
news On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,

No, he's not.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo


He doesn't advocate that people think that way.


He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans


They should.


  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:28 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, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:29:09 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:51:49 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:27 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:05:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Rupert" wrote
On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George wrote:
It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
exaltation and sanctimony.

I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
exaltation and sanctimony.

This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
conscious
awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
two
reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
death
and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
part,
there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.

They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
the
same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,

Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.

Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
of all,

It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.

Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
laying hens.

Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.


Everything is self serving to someone. Having consideration can and does
benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear selfish
and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
elimination objective.


Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.


It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs, while
your anticonsideraion can benefit NOTHING other than the elimination objective.



  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:32 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, 28 Mar 2012 11:46:02 -0700, the Goober wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:35:01 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:04:25 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:04:58 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:41 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:49 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

No

You say so specifically you stupid Goober.

No.


Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.

, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.

You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

No.


Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.


No.


Yes Goob though it may be too much for you to comprehend, when you say some
people should be vegans, you're saying some people should be vegans.

What I say is that "veganism" is a logically consistent choice


Why do you want people to believe that Goo?

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:35 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, 28 Mar 2012 12:27:56 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:29:47 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:

[email protected] wrote in message news On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,

No, he's not.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

He doesn't advocate that people think that way.


He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and he told
us so.


They should.


Then why did you try to deny that the Goober thinks so too?

LOL...you're disturbed that he revealed himself so clearly...LOL... To
you people the Goober is a hero dishonestly pretending to be anti-elimination in
his attempts to win the respect of true antis, when he's really very much in
favor of it. You admired the dishonesty so much that you're trying to get away
with it too, even though you suck worse at pretending than Goo does, and Goo sux
badly. This is only ONE of the ways the Goober has revealed himself.







[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:53:52 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:08:00 -0700, "Dutch" lied for his hero Goo:

[email protected] wrote in message
news On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,

No, he's not.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

He doesn't advocate that people think that way.


He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans


They should.

  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:39 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"

****wit David Harrison - an idiot - lied:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
exaltation and sanctimony.

I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
exaltation and sanctimony.

This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
conscious
awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
two
reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
death
and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
part,
there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.

They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
the
same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,

Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.

Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
of all,

It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.

Considering anti-consideration to be superior is most self-serving because
only eliminationists could benefit from it. Having consideration benefits
livestock in ways like consumers supporting the cage free method of raising
laying hens.

Not when the "consideration" is self serving prattle.

Everything is self serving to someone. Having consideration can and does
benefit livestock while your anti-consideration necessarily can only benefit
you, and that's only if it even does that much. It just makes you appear selfish
and very very stupid from my pov, and doesn't appear capable of benefitting
anything other than the elimination objective. NOTHING else, other than the
elimination objective.


Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.


It does by


It doesn't. It only causes them to exist, and coming into existence -
"getting to experience life", in your wretched lingo - is not a benefit.
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:40 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"

****wit David Harrison - an idiot - lied:


It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

No

You say so specifically you stupid Goober.

No.

Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.

, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.

You're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

No.

Here's a clue for you Goo: When you say some people should be vegans, you're
saying some people should be vegans.


No.


Yes George


No.


What I say is that "veganism" is a logically consistent choice


Why do you want people to believe that


It has nothing to do with what I "want people to believe", Goo.



"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 07:41 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"

****wit David Harrison - an idiot - lied:


It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

Below are all true.

Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,

No, he's not.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

He doesn't advocate that people think that way.

He thinks people who don't want them to exist should be vegans, and he told
us so.


They should.


Then why did you try to deny that the Prof. Plimpton thinks so too?


Because I don't want to see the end of livestock farming, Goo.


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 03:41 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