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
  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 11:56 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: 1,027
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.


It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs


That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering, followed by demanding and
buying cage free eggs is what results in options like cage free and free
range eggs.

Your "LoL" (an apt acronym) consideration is just you patting yourself on
the back after the fact. It does NOTHING for animals and that is proven by
the fact that you can't name a single animal that has ever benefitted from
it.

while
your anticonsideraion can benefit NOTHING other than the elimination
objective.


The so-called "elimination objective" is irrelevant. We both oppose it,
whether you accept that or not. Your decade-long attempt to classify even
the most staunch antis as ARAs for opposing the horseshit that is The LoL,
is beyond laughable.




  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-04-2012, 11:58 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: 1,027
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

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

[email protected] wrote in message
news[email protected] com...
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?


I didn't. *IF* they think that way, THEN they should be vegans, BUT they
shouldn't think that way, and therefore they shouldn't be vegans.





  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 09:55 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, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.


It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs


That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,


That's part of it, and is the only part eliminationists want people to take
into consideration. Other people can move on to consider and appreciate the
positive aspect of when things like cage free eggs and welfare regulations
result in lives of positive value for millions of animals.

followed by demanding and
buying cage free eggs is what results in options like cage free and free
range eggs.

Your ...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals] (an apt acronym) consideration is just you patting yourself on
the back after the fact. It does NOTHING for animals and that is proven by
the fact that you can't name a single animal that has ever benefitted from
it.


People who buy cage free eggs do so because they believe the cage free
method provides decent lives for laying hens. If they didn't they wouldn't spend
the extra money on it, though there are no doubt people who DO believe it but
still don't spend the extra money because they don't care enough that it does.

while
your anticonsideraion can benefit NOTHING other than the elimination
objective.


The so-called "elimination objective" is irrelevant.


Not to everyone.

...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
is beyond laughable.


Not to everyone.
  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 09:55 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, 3 Apr 2012 15:58:32 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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

[email protected] wrote in message
news[email protected] .com...
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?


I didn't. *IF* they think that way, THEN they should be vegans, BUT they
shouldn't think that way


What should they think instead?
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-04-2012, 10:12 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 4/9/2012 1:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, wrote:



The so-called "elimination objective" is irrelevant.


Not to everyone.


It is wholly irrelevant in terms of the non-existent "benefit" of
"getting to experience life" for animals.


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 12:01 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: 1,027
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.

It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs


That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,


That's part of it


It's all of it.

...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
is beyond laughable.


Not to everyone.


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

If I "consider animal suffering" then I obviously "appreciate lives of
positive value for livestock animals", they are two sides of the same coin.

In other words you have edited away your true agenda, why? Are you ashamed
of it? How do you expect readers to know that want them to take pride that
animals "get to experience life" because your appetite for meat if you hide
behind fake concern for animal welfare?



  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-04-2012, 12:03 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: 1,027
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:58:32 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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

[email protected] wrote in message
news[email protected] x.com...
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?


I didn't. *IF* they think that way, THEN they should be vegans, BUT they
shouldn't think that way


What should they think instead?


That's not for me to say, just NOT that avoiding animal products equals a
cruelty free lifestyle.



  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 06:49 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 Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.

It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs

That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,


That's part of it


It's all of it.


Liar.

...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
is beyond laughable.


Not to everyone.


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

If I "consider animal suffering" then I obviously "appreciate lives of
positive value for livestock animals"


Are you now claiming to appreciate lives of positive value for livestock
animals? If so, what made you change your mind all of a sudden do you know? Why
doesn't it make you feel dirty any more?
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-04-2012, 07:05 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 4/11/2012 10:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:56:13 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:26:54 -0700, wrote:

Your "consideration" doesn't benefit any livestock.

It does by resulting in options like cage free and free range eggs

That's a lie, consideration of animal suffering,

That's part of it


It's all of it.


Liar.

...[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals]
is beyond laughable.

Not to everyone.


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

If I "consider animal suffering" then I obviously "appreciate lives of
positive value for livestock animals"


Are you now claiming to appreciate lives of positive value for livestock
animals?


He always has - what he *doesn't* claim is that the animals ought to
exist in the first place.
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-04-2012, 01:09 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: 1,027
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

[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.

I've been waiting for 13 years for you to tell me what purpose it serves but
you can't do it. All you ever do is respond with vague language indicating
better conditions for animals but that is ONLY accomplished by considering
suffering then doing something about it, not "appreciating positive
situations"..






  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-04-2012, 08:59 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, 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.

  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 07:33 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: 1,027
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"



[email protected] wrote in message ...
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.

Hint: you can't because it isn't. You're full of shit.



  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 03:49 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 4/15/2012 12:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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.


It isn't. It isn't necessary for anything, and you can't even define
what it means. It's just meaningless cracker blabber.

What you *want* it to mean is for people to want livestock animals to
exist, but the quality of their lives is no reason to want them to exist.

"Getting to experience life", of any quality, is not a benefit. There
is nothing to consider. If no more livestock ever exist, there is no
moral dimension to it.
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 11:39 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 Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
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.

Hint: you can't because it isn't.


I did. ONLY eliminationists have reason to lie that the lives of billions of
animals are not worthy of consideration, because such a lie ONLY benefits the
elimination objective and NOTHING ELSE besides the elimination objective.
  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-04-2012, 11:59 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 4/16/2012 3:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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.


No, it's meaningless.


Hint: you can't because it isn't.


I did.


You didn't - you couldn't, because it's meaningless.


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 01:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 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