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 05-07-2012, 11:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 7/5/2012 10:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:


On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:


There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.


Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.


I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.


Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.


Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals.


How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

You stupid ****ing redneck douchebag: a terrible life is, by
definition, a life of [gag] "negative value"; and a wonderful, pleasant
life is, by definition, a life of [retch] "positive value".

You're being redundant, you stupid ****:

"decent lives" *EQUALS* "positive value"
"terrible lives" *EQLAUS* "negative value"

You stupid, idiotic, plodding redneck ****.



I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
value


1. You don't know
2. You don't care



George Plimpton doesn't believe any animals benefit from living


They don't. No living entity "benefits" simply from existing.
Existence, or "getting to experience life" in your wretchedly shitty
phrase, is not a benefit. It cannot be one.


All of the below are true statements.



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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - George Plimpton

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - George Plimpton

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - George Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - George Plimpton

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - George Plimpton

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - George Plimpton

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - George Plimpton

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - George Plimpton

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - George Plimpton

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - George Plimpton

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - George Plimpton

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

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

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - George Plimpton

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

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - George Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - George Plimpton

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton




  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-07-2012, 06:08 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:


On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:


There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.


Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.


I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.


Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.


Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".


Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
meaning, something he appears to know and you don't. You
still conflate the related but distinct concepts of
existence and treatment, and now you've apparently added the
unknown of how the animals "feel about" all this.

I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't
know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but
suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative
value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive
value imo.

Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
him regardless of the quality of their lives:

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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - 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

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

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

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-07-2012, 09:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:

There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.


Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".


Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.


In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-07-2012, 09:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:

There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.


Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".


How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?


He can't comprehend the concept of lives of either positive value or
negative value. You pretend that you can Goober, so do you think you can help
your brother Rupert to comprehend as well? No, you can't Goo. No one can because
his brain is unfit to handle the task.

I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't
know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but
suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative
value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive
value imo.

Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
him regardless of the quality of their lives:

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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - 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

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

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

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo







On 7/5/2012 10:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:

There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.


Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals.


How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

You stupid ****ing redneck douchebag: a terrible life is, by
definition, a life of [gag] "negative value"; and a wonderful, pleasant
life is, by definition, a life of [retch] "positive value".

You're being redundant, you stupid ****:

"decent lives" *EQUALS* "positive value"
"terrible lives" *EQLAUS* "negative value"

You stupid, idiotic, plodding redneck ****.



I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
value


1. You don't know
2. You don't care



George Plimpton doesn't believe any animals benefit from living


They don't. No living entity "benefits" simply from existing.
Existence, or "getting to experience life" in your wretchedly shitty
phrase, is not a benefit. It cannot be one.


All of the below are true statements.



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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - George Plimpton

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - George Plimpton

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - George Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - George Plimpton

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - George Plimpton

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - George Plimpton

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - George Plimpton

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - George Plimpton

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - George Plimpton

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - George Plimpton

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - George Plimpton

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

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

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - George Plimpton

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

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - George Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - George Plimpton

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-07-2012, 09:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 7/10/2012 1:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:

There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".


Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.


In contrast to that


No.

"Getting to experience life" is of no meaning or value to animals.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-07-2012, 09:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, cracker lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:


There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".


How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?


He can't comprehend the concept of lives of


Nothing you write is beyond his comprehension. You just write shit.


All true statements below, except for the unethically mangled ones.

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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


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


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.



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


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


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

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton







On 7/5/2012 10:14 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:

There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals.


How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

You stupid ****ing redneck douchebag: a terrible life is, by
definition, a life of [gag] "negative value"; and a wonderful, pleasant
life is, by definition, a life of [retch] "positive value".

You're being redundant, you stupid ****:

"decent lives" *EQUALS* "positive value"
"terrible lives" *EQLAUS* "negative value"

You stupid, idiotic, plodding redneck ****.



I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
value


1. You don't know
2. You don't care



George Plimpton doesn't believe any animals benefit from living


They don't. No living entity "benefits" simply from existing.
Existence, or "getting to experience life" in your wretchedly shitty
phrase, is not a benefit. It cannot be one.


All of the below are true statements.



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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - George Plimpton

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - George Plimpton

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - George Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - George Plimpton

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - George Plimpton

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - George Plimpton

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - George Plimpton

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - George Plimpton

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - George Plimpton

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - George Plimpton

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - George Plimpton

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

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

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - George Plimpton

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

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - George Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - George Plimpton

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton




  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-07-2012, 10:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:33:16 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, Goo wrote:

On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
Le 2012-07-03 12:42, [email protected] a écrit :
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert

wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:
There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

That's good.


If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
positive value, Goo?

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
it justifies eating them. It doesn't.


For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
lives into consideration.

The justification has to come
from elsewhere.


Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
works against the elimination objective.


Show it.


"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - 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

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

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-07-2012, 08:30 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

****wit David Harrison, cracker lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:


There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

That's good.

If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
positive value, Goo?

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
it justifies eating them. It doesn't.

For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
lives into consideration.

The justification has to come
from elsewhere.

Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
works against the elimination objective.


Show it.




You didn't show it.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-07-2012, 06:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 63
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:

There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".


Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.


In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.


You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
ideas.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-07-2012, 08:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, [email protected] pointed out:

Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
him regardless of the quality of their lives:

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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

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


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

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


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

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



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-07-2012, 08:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

dh quoted Goo:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, [email protected] wrote:



Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
works against the elimination objective.

Show it.


"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - 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

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

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

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


You didn't show it.


I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
elimination objective, Goo.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-07-2012, 08:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ıt wrote:

There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".

Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.


In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.


You're right


The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them even though they don't feel that their particular life is
actually "good". The same sorts of conditions apply to some other types of
animals besides humans, though you and Rupert can't appreciate the fact even in
regards to humans much less to other types of animals as well.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-07-2012, 09:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Dietary ethics

[email protected] wrote:

I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
elimination objective, Goo.


Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-07-2012, 09:32 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Dietary ethics

[email protected] wrote:

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them


Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-07-2012, 09:53 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 7/12/2012 12:05 PM, ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The statements below are all true, except for the obvious forgeries.

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

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

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people to


It's a forgery - not a quote.


"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people


It's a forgery - not a quote.

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


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people to think


It's a forgery - not a quote.

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


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people to think


It's a forgery - not a quote.

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


If you want people


It's a forgery - not a quote.

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





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
Dietary ethics [email protected] Vegan 0 03-07-2012 05:42 PM
Dietary Question Virginia Tadrzynski[_2_] General Cooking 33 02-03-2010 04:16 AM
Attitudes toward dietary adversity Christine Dabney General Cooking 143 18-01-2008 12:27 AM
Cocoa (dietary) and UV photoprotection bobbie sellers Chocolate 0 04-08-2006 06:18 PM
Dietary Guidelines for Diabetics medianext05 Diabetic 1 10-07-2006 12:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 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