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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2012, 11:41 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Moral considerability

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:50:55 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:28:12 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, [email protected] quoted Goo revealing that
quality of life doesn't matter to him:

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


You give the quality of their lives *zero* consideration, Goo.


Your quote above proves that quality means nothing to you, 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

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

.. . .
"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

.. . .
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo


The part to which you give *no* consideration, Goo. I've proved it, via
your own quotes.


I proved that you give no consideration to the part about quality of life by
posting your quotes Goob. You have confirmed that it means nothing to you, but I
proved it to begin with by quoting you specifically saying so.

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

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


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2012, 12:57 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Moral considerability

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


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


Not a quote.



You give the quality of their lives *zero* consideration, Goo.


Your quote above proves that quality means nothing to you


No.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2012, 05:53 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Moral considerability

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:57:27 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:36 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:50:55 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:28:12 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, [email protected] quoted Goo revealing that
quality of life doesn't matter to him:

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

You give the quality of their lives *zero* consideration, Goo.


Your quote above proves that quality means nothing to you, 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

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

. . .
"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

. . .
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

The part to which you give *no* consideration, Goo. I've proved it, via
your own quotes.


I proved that you give no consideration to the part about quality of life by
posting your quotes Goob. You have confirmed that it means nothing to you, but I
proved it to begin with by quoting you specifically saying so.


No.


Yes that's how I proved it Goob.

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

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

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2012, 06:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,talk.politics.animals,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Moral considerability

****wit David Harrison, a felon convicted of engaging in illegal animal
combats, lied:


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


Not a quote. This has been established beyond all dispute.



The part to which you give *no* consideration, Goo. I've proved it, via
your own quotes.


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


I proved that you give no consideration to the part about quality of life


No.


Yes that's how


No. I do give consideration to the quality of animals' lives, Goo, but
you don't - all you care about is that they exist. See above.


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
The moral crusade against foodies spamtrap1888 General Cooking 0 03-03-2011 04:45 PM
The moral crusade against foodies Janet General Cooking 0 03-03-2011 03:22 PM
what is the moral? Aussie2[_2_] General Cooking 0 21-12-2010 11:01 PM
moral absolutes Jay Santos Vegan 35 03-01-2005 01:47 AM
Is eating dogs moral? Kenneth Leja General Cooking 19 30-11-2003 10:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 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