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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-07-2012, 09:55 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 shit in his panties:



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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

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


It's a forgery - not a quote.

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


It's a forgery - not a quote.


""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

"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


The one below is not a quote.

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


You didn't show it.


I showed that


You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-07-2012, 09:55 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 12:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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 ýt 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.


The fact


Not a fact.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-07-2012, 06:43 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3
Default Dietary ethics

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
[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


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.

You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.


--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid
of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against
the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
-- Martin Luther (1533)
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-07-2012, 06:55 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, 12 Jul 2012 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

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 ýt 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.


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.


Still can't quite grasp it, and have no recourse but to post
irrelevancies, huh? OK; HANL.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 06:40 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, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch wrote:

[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,


So do animals in similar positions.

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


I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
and which seem to be positive.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 06:40 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, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
[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


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago and some people referred
to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
"Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
over elimination.

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 06:41 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 Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:55:40 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by [email protected]:

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 ýt 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.


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.


Still can't quite grasp it, and have no recourse but to post
irrelevancies, huh?


That is the position Rupert and you are in apparently.

OK; HANL.

  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 06:42 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, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:

[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.


There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
are most often of negative value, if any.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 06:43 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, 12 Jul 2012 13:55:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:44 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

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.


You


Goober as always if you want people to think you think you disagree with
yourself about any of your quotes then YOU need to try explaining HOW you want
people to think you think you do. But you can't even make an attempt Goob
because you agree with yourself about every bit of it. You agree with yourself
about every one of the quotes I presented, Goo.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 06:43 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, 12 Jul 2012 13:53:54 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:20 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

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.


It's a forgery - not a quote.


If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about your own quotes
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.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 08:11 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:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch wrote:

[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,


So do animals in similar positions.


Exactly my point. Those people who advocate the elimination of livestock
breeding, and I am not one of them, and you know I'm not, are NOT
advocating harming animals, or denying the "positive value" of animals'
lives, because they propose that those animals never exist in the first
place, and from the point of view of actual animals with interests, that
suggestion is neutral.


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


I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
and which seem to be positive.


That's not the part of the essay I mean. The point you're missing is
that people like Salt, ARAs, vegans and PeTA, "eliminationists" are not
doing anything morally assailable by suggesting that livestock be
eliminated. No matter how "positive" the lives of existing livestock
might be, suggesting that the species be eliminated does those animals
no harm. Your "LoL" argument is circular, meaningless.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 08:20 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:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
[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


It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist.


That's a logical point.


It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in logic
which persists in your arguments to this day.

and some people referred
to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
"Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
over elimination.


That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
separate and distinct choices)


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-07-2012, 08:20 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:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:

[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.


There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
are most often of negative value, if any.


So list them.



  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2012, 01:50 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
Dutch wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
[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

It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated
by negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).


It's still positive in respect that they want to continue
living.

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once
they exist.

That's a logical point.


It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except
for the fact that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in
logic which persists in your arguments to this day.

and some people referred
to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived
potential future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they"
never experience life. It's a lie, though I do consider the
possibility that there could be multiple lives somehow. I don't
have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived potential beings
experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock. That
doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience
decent lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't
afford to consider that aspect of human influence on animals, but
anyone who favors decent AW over elimination certainly should both
consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for that aspect is
something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself,
his boy "Dutch" and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have
Goo and "Dutch", both of whom are maniacally opposed to taking
decent lives of livestock into consideration. "Dutch" claims to
have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him feel
dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the
animals he claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals
that he does NOT favor AW over elimination.


That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
separate and distinct choices)


I think it's pretty obvious that there's a consensus in the value of
Animal Welfare.

I wonder if things may have gotten off track also because there's may
be a hint of various perceptions of cannibalism that are subconsciously
being applied to eating animals. Although cannibalism is generally
regarded as a horrific practice by many people who are not familiar
with it, there are some societies that value it as an important
practice because it frees the deceased's spirit from limbo, making it
possible to progress to some notion of an afterlife (or reincarnation).

(Interestingly, some cannibalistic tribes have been known to not eat
their enemies as a means of punishment that prevents them from
progressing where they might continue to wage war against their fallen
brethren.)

The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I'm playing for my life. You're working for money."
-- Charles Milles Manson
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2012, 04:39 AM 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

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
Dutch wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch wrote:
[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

It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated
by negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

It's still positive in respect that they want to continue
living.

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once
they exist.

That's a logical point.

It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except
for the fact that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago


It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in
logic which persists in your arguments to this day.

and some people referred
to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived
potential future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they"
never experience life. It's a lie, though I do consider the
possibility that there could be multiple lives somehow. I don't
have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived potential beings
experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock. That
doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience
decent lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't
afford to consider that aspect of human influence on animals, but
anyone who favors decent AW over elimination certainly should both
consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for that aspect is
something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself,
his boy "Dutch" and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have
Goo and "Dutch", both of whom are maniacally opposed to taking
decent lives of livestock into consideration. "Dutch" claims to
have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him feel
dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the
animals he claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals
that he does NOT favor AW over elimination.


That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
separate and distinct choices)


I think it's pretty obvious that there's a consensus in the value of
Animal Welfare.

I wonder if things may have gotten off track also because there's may
be a hint of various perceptions of cannibalism that are subconsciously
being applied to eating animals. Although cannibalism is generally
regarded as a horrific practice by many people who are not familiar
with it, there are some societies that value it as an important
practice because it frees the deceased's spirit from limbo, making it
possible to progress to some notion of an afterlife (or reincarnation).

(Interestingly, some cannibalistic tribes have been known to not eat
their enemies as a means of punishment that prevents them from
progressing where they might continue to wage war against their fallen
brethren.)

The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.


I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
of the issue in the debate between [email protected] and everyone else. He tries to
make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens. The
crux if his position is that users of animals and animal products should
take pride in the fact that those animals "get to experience life" and
conversely vegans ("eliminationists") as he calls them) do not sponsor
animals getting to experience life. Also anyone who rejects his nonsense
is labelled as an "eliminationist".



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 05:02 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