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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2012, 02:51 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, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with


It's a forgery - not a quote.


If you want people to think you disagree with


It's a forgery, ****wit. Proved. You're a liar and a forger.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2012, 02:52 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, a convicted felon, lied:


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.

[snip mangled fake quotes]

You didn't show it.

I showed


You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.


as always if you want people to think you think you disagree with


You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2012, 07:39 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, convicted felon, lied:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:09:06 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:34:44 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700, Dutch wrote:

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

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.

That's a blatant lie since I refer to animals who have lives of negative
value as well as those of positive value.

Nope, it is the truth.

Obviously I refer to animals who have lives of negative value as well as
those of positive value.


Animal welfare is not what your position is about, that is a smokescreen.


I encourage people to appreciate


"Animal welfare is not what your position is about, that is a
smokescreen." That is a true statement, ****wit. You do not care at
all about animal welfare or "decent lives of possitive [sic] value" for
livestock animals. All you care about is that they exist in order for
you to consume them.

You're a fraud and a liar.

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2012, 07:40 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, convicted felon, lied:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:05:40 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

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.

For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every group
including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of
positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them
appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.
Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,
like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing
crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life
to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of much
greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but
some of us are able to.

blah blah

Those are just more things you people hate to think about because they don't
favor elimination.


Stop lying, you don't believe I favor elimination,


You were honest about


Dutch does not favor the elimination of livestock, and you know it.

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2012, 07:42 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, convicted felon, lied:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:34:44 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700, Dutch wrote:

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

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.

That's a blatant lie since I refer to animals who have lives of negative
value as well as those of positive value.


Nope, it is the truth.


Obviously I refer to animals who have lives of negative value as well as


You do not care about animal welfare at all. You never have cared about it.



  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2012, 07:42 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, convicted felon, lied:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

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.

For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every group
including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of
positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them
appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.
Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,
like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing
crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life
to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of much
greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but
some of us are able to.


blah blah


Those are just more things you people hate


We hate liars. You are a liar.

  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-07-2012, 08:09 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, convicted felon, lied:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
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:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

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


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 12:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On Jul 30, 9:09*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:









On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
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:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


* * * *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


* * *That's a blatant lie.


It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
most deeply held belief:

* * * * Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
* * * * born if nothing prevents that from happening,
* * * * that would experience the loss if their lives
* * * * are prevented.
* * * * ****wit - 08/01/2000

You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:

* * * * The animals that will be raised for us to eat
* * * * are more than just "nothing", because they
* * * * *will* be born unless something stops their
* * * * lives from happening. Since that is the case,
* * * * if something stops their lives from happening,
* * * * whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
* * * * them of the life they otherwise would have had.
* * * * ****wit - 12/09/1999

Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 03:19 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 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:









On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
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:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


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


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.

This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?

  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 06:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
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:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


* * * * 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


* * * That's a blatant lie.


It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


* * * * *Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
* * * * *born if nothing prevents that from happening,
* * * * *that would experience the loss if their lives
* * * * *are prevented.
* * * * *****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


* * * * *The animals that will be raised for us to eat
* * * * *are more than just "nothing", because they
* * * * **will* be born unless something stops their
* * * * *lives from happening. Since that is the case,
* * * * *if something stops their lives from happening,
* * * * *whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
* * * * *them of the life they otherwise would have had.
* * * * *****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. *In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". *But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.

This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 06:15 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 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
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:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


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


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.

This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. Everything he's written since then proves it. He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. Everyone knows it. ****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. ****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. You know he thinks this. You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.

  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 06:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Dietary ethics

On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
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:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


* * * * *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


* * * *That's a blatant lie.


It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


* * * * * Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
* * * * * born if nothing prevents that from happening,
* * * * * that would experience the loss if their lives
* * * * * are prevented.
* * * * * ****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


* * * * * The animals that will be raised for us to eat
* * * * * are more than just "nothing", because they
* * * * * *will* be born unless something stops their
* * * * * lives from happening. Since that is the case,
* * * * * if something stops their lives from happening,
* * * * * whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
* * * * * them of the life they otherwise would have had.
* * * * * ****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. *In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". *But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. *Everything he's written since then proves it. *He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. *Everyone knows it. *****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. *****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. *You know he thinks this. *You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 06:28 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 7/31/2012 10:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 31 Jul., 19:15, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:05 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 31 Jul., 16:19, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/31/2012 4:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch wrote:


****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
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:
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


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


That's a blatant lie.


It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.


If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?


The one that is trying to erase something else stupid that he said. In
this case, ****wit was frantically trying to undo the effect of his
notorious "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." statement by saying he
considered the unborn animals to be "nothing". But he had already said
they "...are more than just 'nothing'", and it is obvious that later
saying they are "nothing" was merely to try to escape the absurdity of
his August 2000 statement.


This kind of analysis comes easily to logical thinkers, Woopert - what's
your problem?


Has it occurred to you that he might have changed his mind?


He didn't. Everything he's written since then proves it. He *does*
consider the unborn farm animals to be "more than just 'nothing'" - even
you know that. Everyone knows it. ****wit assigns moral weight to the
possibility of "getting to experience life" for farm animals that
wouldn't be bred into existence for decades. ****wit irrationally -
insanely - thinks it is morally good *today* for the unborn farm animals
themselves to want them to be bred into existence in the future; and he
thinks you and all the other "vegan" twits whom he calls
"eliminationists" are committing a moral wrong by wanting to stop the
breeding of farm animals. You know he thinks this. You may for your
own absurd and psychotic reasons wish to say that you don't know it, but
you do know it, and we all know you know it.


So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?


Doesn't think what? He's claimed there are a couple of things he's
written that are not his true thoughts. Do you mean that he doesn't
think unborn farm animals will suffer a "loss" if they are "prevented"
from being conceived and born? He says he doesn't think that because he
became aware, thanks to me, of just how stupid and illogical and insane
that sounds. Of course, he *does* think it - it very clearly and
obviously underlies everything else he has written on the topic.

Do you mean that he doesn't think the unborn animals "...are more than
just 'nothing'", i.e., that he thinks they *are* "just 'nothing'"? He
said he thought they were "just 'nothing'" as a way of trying to shuffle
away from his "Yes, it is the unborn animals..." ****wittery, because he
didn't remember having said that they "...are more than just 'nothing'".

He's just ****ed. He stated his true beliefs, in December 1999 and
again in August 2000, and they show him to be an irrational idiot. I
don't think he's psychotic, as you are, but he's clearly irrational and
incapable of clear and logical thinking.

  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 07:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Dietary ethics

Rupert wrote:

So what's your explanation for why he claims he doesn't think it?



When it's laid out for him in simple terms he realizes how idiotic it
sounds so he can't say he believes it.

But then he proceeds to attack vegans, "eliminationists", for their
failure to provide the opportunity for animals to experience "decent AW".

He's not bright enough to realize that by doing so he is admitting that
he implicitly believes that non-existent animals can "lose" something.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-07-2012, 07:53 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 Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:52:01 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:43:25 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

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.


You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.


If you want anyone to think I'm lying Goob, it's up to YOU to try explaining
how you want them to think you think you disagree with yourself about ANY OF
your claims. Since you can't Goober, it's a clear sign that you do agree with
yourself about every one of your quotes and can't even pretend that you don't.


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 01:51 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