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
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 12:57 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 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


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.

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.


That was an impugning of motives, not an explanation.

The only necessary consideration of the lives of livestock arises if the
animals are suffering, then the consideration must lead to action. As long
as they are not suffering then thinking about their lives serves no purpose,
because no action is required.

All your talk about "big picture" is meaningless ****wit code.




  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 10:20 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, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
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


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.

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.


That was


NOTHING ELSE besides the elimination objective.
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 10:31 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 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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



[email protected] wrote in message
m...
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, you just repeat the
same empty assertion, again, over and over.


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.


That was


NOTHING ELSE besides the same empty assertion, again, over and over.
You're just pushing a dishonest, meaningless rationalization.







  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 04:59 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 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:31:51 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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

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



[email protected] wrote in message
om...
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. DUH! That
aspect of the situation is significant to eliminationists because they do NOT
want people taking it into consideration because doing so works against the
elimination objective. That is exactly why you are opposed to people taking it
into consideration, and the ONLY reason you have for being opposed to people
taking it into consideration.
  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:17 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 4/18/2012 8:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:
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.


You mean it allows billions of animals to exist. That's *all* you care
about.


  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:22 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 "Decent lives of possitive [sic] value"

It just means "existence" to ****wit. He doesn't care about the quality
of livestock animals' lives, as he has frequently indicated.

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

****wit only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly
meat, but also disgusting animal combats that ****wit enjoys watching.
  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:29 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 Livestock animals don't "get something" out of any "deal"

There is no "deal" struck with livestock animals. "Getting to
experience life" is not some kind of compensation for the fact that
they're slaughtered. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit in
any way for animals (or for any other living entity.)

It is not "more ethical" to want livestock animals to exist, rather than
not wanting them to exist.
  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 06:28 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: 1,025
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

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

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

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



[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] 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, 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", you're just patting yourself on the back.



  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-04-2012, 10:43 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, 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 ...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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



[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] .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, 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.

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, 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.
  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-04-2012, 10:44 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 "Decent lives of possitive [sic] value"

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:22:51 -0700, Goo wrote:

It just means "existence"


Not to me Goo, but that's obviously all it means to you/eliminationists:

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

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

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

""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't *MEAN* anything" - Goo

""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't mean anything." - Goo


  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-04-2012, 10:53 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 4/23/2012 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,


It has no moral significance at all.


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


The animals don't "get something out of it". "Getting to experience
life" in the first place is meaningless to animals.
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-04-2012, 10:55 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 "Decent lives of possitive [sic] value"

****wit David Harrison - convicted of breeding fighting dogs - lied:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:22:51 -0700, Prof. Geo. Plimpton wrote:

It just means "existence" to ****wit. He doesn't care about the quality of livestock animals' lives, as he has frequently indicated.


Not to me, but


Yes, to you, Goo. You don't *care* about the quality of their lives, Goo:

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


It's far too late for you to try to maintain the lie, Goo. You're ****ed.
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-04-2012, 06:42 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 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
m...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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



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

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.

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.

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.

You're proposing that we believe that something bad would happen if
livestock were eliminated, and that bad thing somehow relates to "AW", that
the animals that wouldn't exist would 'miss out' on something, or whatever.
The whole theory is incoherent nonsense.





  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-04-2012, 09:24 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 "Decent lives of possitive [sic] value"

****wit David Harrison, convicted breeder of fighting birds, lied:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:22:51 -0700, George Plimpton authoritatively wrote:

It just means "existence"


Not to me, but


Yes, it only means existence to you, Goo. You don't give any
consideration to the quality of life for farm animals at all, Goo -
you've told us repeatedly that you don't:

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


*ALL* you care about is if they exist, Goo. Stop lying about your
"consideration", Goo - it's fake.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-04-2012, 11:30 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, 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
om...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:57:23 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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



[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] ax.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"

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.

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.

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.


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 06:42 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