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
  #736 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2013, 11:56 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, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:24 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:37:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:25 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:05:48 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, Goo agreed:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, Goo lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely blatantly:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
not all equal?" - James Hepler

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think he disagrees with himself then Goo? Also Goober, which
animals or beings of any kind do you want us to think don't derive the benefit
of getting to live, and why? Do you think any creatures DO derive the benefit of
getting to live Goob, and if so what do you think is the distinction between
them and livestock animals who you claim don't, do you have any idea?


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live Goo. Billions of them. Some of them have lives of positive
value and some of negative value, but you people can't appreciate or even
acknowledge the difference.

No moral meaning to that

Not to YOU Goo, but it has much meaning to people who honestly favor decent
AW over elimination.

It has no meaning

Goo people who honestly believe decent AW is ethically equivalent or
superior to elimination have no reason to oppose taking those same lives and
potential lives into consideration, you stupid STUPID Goober.

The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning


Of course it does Goo, and the fact that you have no clue how much it has is
something else that exposes you.


No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
including you.


It certainly has as much or more than their deaths Goob. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the animals' lives, Goo.

  #737 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-01-2013, 12:21 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

On 1/28/2013 3:56 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 1/22/2013 3:37 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 1/21/2013 7:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 1/21/2013 3:05 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* -
convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*
- convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison
- *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

[bullshit]

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience
life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to
experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get
to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals
don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live

No moral meaning to that, *Goo*, and James Hepler told you
so...as did
Martin Martens, John Mercer, Felix, Swamp, diderot, Illinois
Bowhunter,
and Sue Bishop.

Not to YOU

It has no meaning, period - zero.

people who honestly believe decent AW

The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning to anyone,
*Goo*. That's just a fact - an indisputable fact.

Of course it does


No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
including you. You're just being pig-shit stubborn and stupid again.


It certainly has as much or more than their deaths


No, it does not. It has *NO* meaning at all, *Goo* - zero. Their
deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally
troubling. Changing the course of action so that some animal lives
don't happen is meaningless, *to the animals*. It *cannot* have any
meaning to the animals that are not going to exist, ****wit.


  #738 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-01-2013, 08:13 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 Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:15 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:56:01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:24 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:37:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:25 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:05:48 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, Goo agreed:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, Goo lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely blatantly:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
not all equal?" - James Hepler

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think he disagrees with himself then Goo? Also Goober, which
animals or beings of any kind do you want us to think don't derive the benefit
of getting to live, and why? Do you think any creatures DO derive the benefit of
getting to live Goob, and if so what do you think is the distinction between
them and livestock animals who you claim don't, do you have any idea?


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live Goo. Billions of them. Some of them have lives of positive
value and some of negative value, but you people can't appreciate or even
acknowledge the difference.

No moral meaning to that

Not to YOU Goo, but it has much meaning to people who honestly favor decent
AW over elimination.

It has no meaning

Goo people who honestly believe decent AW is ethically equivalent or
superior to elimination have no reason to oppose taking those same lives and
potential lives into consideration, you stupid STUPID Goober.

The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning

Of course it does Goo, and the fact that you have no clue how much it has is
something else that exposes you.

No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
including you.


It certainly has as much or more than their deaths Goob. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the animals' lives, Goo.


No, it does not. It has *NO* meaning at all


It sure does Goob and ONLY eliminationists are in a position to be unable to
appreciate the fact. And then ONLY the very stupid eliminationists are unable to
recognise the meaning at all. The more intelligent ones would recognise it even
if they were not able to appreciate it, as most likely no eliminationists are or
they would be AW advocates instead of eliminationists, Goo.

, *Goo* - zero. Their
deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally
troubling.


LOL!!! It's hilarious in the most pathetic of ways that you find ending
something you consider to be meaningless also morally troubling, Goo. LOL...what
a true Goober you are Goob.

Changing the course of action so that some animal lives
don't happen is meaningless


That part we know you can comprehend Goo, but how it has meaning when they
DO LIVE is one of the aspects you people are unable to appreciate and some of
you can't even comprehend.
  #739 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-01-2013, 09:25 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 1/30/2013 12:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 1/28/2013 3:56 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 1/22/2013 3:37 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 1/21/2013 7:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 1/21/2013 3:05 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* -
convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*
- convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison
- *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting,
lied:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

[bullshit]

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to
experience
life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to
experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they
get
to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals
don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to
live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live

No moral meaning to that, *Goo*, and James Hepler told you
so...as did
Martin Martens, John Mercer, Felix, Swamp, diderot, Illinois
Bowhunter,
and Sue Bishop.

Not to YOU

It has no meaning, period - zero.

people who honestly believe decent AW

The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning to
anyone,
*Goo*. That's just a fact - an indisputable fact.

Of course it does

No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
including you. You're just being pig-shit stubborn and stupid again.

It certainly has as much or more than their deaths


No, it does not. It has *NO* meaning at all


It sure does and


No. It has no meaning at all, *Goo*.



*Goo* - zero. Their
deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally
troubling.


It's hilarious in the


No, *Goo*.

The fact they "get to experience life" has no meaning, *Goo* - you have
admitted it, *Goo* - and *THEREFORE*, *Goo*, if they never live at all,
that has no meaning, either. None.



Changing the course of action so that some animal lives
don't happen is meaningless *to the animals*. It *cannot* have any
meaning to the animals that are not going to exist, ****wit.


but how it has meaning when they DO LIVE


It doesn't. "Getting to experience life" has no meaning "to the
animals", *Goo*. There is nothing to consider about what's important
"to the animals", *Goo*

In all this time, *Goo* - over 14 years - you have not been able to say
what is important "to the animals" about "getting to experience life",
because *nothing* is important about it, and *THEREFORE*, there is
nothing to consider. You were done over 14 years ago, *Goo* - why have
you wasted all this time fighting a lost cause?

  #740 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:13 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:25:12 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:13:46 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:15 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:56:01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:24 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:37:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:25 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:05:48 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, Goo agreed:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, Goo lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely blatantly:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
not all equal?" - James Hepler

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think he disagrees with himself then Goo? Also Goober, which
animals or beings of any kind do you want us to think don't derive the benefit
of getting to live, and why? Do you think any creatures DO derive the benefit of
getting to live Goob, and if so what do you think is the distinction between
them and livestock animals who you claim don't, do you have any idea?


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live Goo. Billions of them. Some of them have lives of positive
value and some of negative value, but you people can't appreciate or even
acknowledge the difference.

No moral meaning to that

Not to YOU Goo, but it has much meaning to people who honestly favor decent
AW over elimination.

It has no meaning

Goo people who honestly believe decent AW is ethically equivalent or
superior to elimination have no reason to oppose taking those same lives and
potential lives into consideration, you stupid STUPID Goober.

The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning

Of course it does Goo, and the fact that you have no clue how much it has is
something else that exposes you.

No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
including you.

It certainly has as much or more than their deaths Goob. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the animals' lives, Goo.

No, it does not. It has *NO* meaning at all


It sure does Goob and ONLY eliminationists are in a position to be unable to
appreciate the fact. And then ONLY the very stupid eliminationists are unable to
recognise the meaning at all. The more intelligent ones would recognise it even
if they were not able to appreciate it, as most likely no eliminationists are or
they would be AW advocates instead of eliminationists, Goo.

, *Goo* - zero. Their
deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally
troubling.


LOL!!! It's hilarious in the most pathetic of ways that you find ending
something you consider to be meaningless also morally troubling, Goo. LOL...what
a true Goober you are Goob.

Changing the course of action so that some animal lives
don't happen is meaningless


That part we know you can comprehend Goo, but how it has meaning when they
DO LIVE is one of the aspects you people are unable to appreciate and some of
you can't even comprehend.


It doesn't. "Getting to experience life" has no meaning "to the
animals"


In contrast to that seemingly idiotic claim, it has the meaning of
everything they ever experience both good and bad afawk, Goo.



  #741 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2013, 02:28 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

On 2/4/2013 4:13 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
On 1/30/2013 1:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 1/30/2013 12:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On 1/28/2013 3:56 PM,****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 1/22/2013 3:37 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 1/21/2013 7:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 1/21/2013 3:05 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* -
convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo*
- convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison
- *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting,
lied:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

[bullshit]

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to
experience
life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to
experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals
getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they
get
to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals
don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to
live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live

No moral meaning to that, *Goo*, and James Hepler told you
so...as did
Martin Martens, John Mercer, Felix, Swamp, diderot, Illinois
Bowhunter,
and Sue Bishop.

Not to YOU

It has no meaning, period - zero.

people who honestly believe decent AW

The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning to
anyone,
*Goo*. That's just a fact - an indisputable fact.

Of course it does

No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
including you. You're just being pig-shit stubborn and stupid again.

It certainly has as much or more than their deaths

No, it does not. It has *NO* meaning at all

It sure does and


No. It has no meaning at all, *Goo*.



*Goo* - zero. Their
deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally
troubling.

It's hilarious in the


No, *Goo*.

The fact they "get to experience life" has no meaning, *Goo* - you have
admitted it, *Goo* - and *THEREFORE*, *Goo*, if they never live at all,
that has no meaning, either. None.



Changing the course of action so that some animal lives
don't happen is meaningless *to the animals*. It *cannot* have any
meaning to the animals that are not going to exist, ****wit.

but how it has meaning when they DO LIVE


It doesn't. "Getting to experience life" has no meaning "to the
animals", *Goo*. There is nothing to consider about what's important
"to the animals", *Goo*

In all this time, *Goo* - over 14 years - you have not been able to say
what is important "to the animals" about "getting to experience life",
because *nothing* is important about it, and *THEREFORE*, there is
nothing to consider. You were done over 14 years ago, *Goo* - why have
you wasted all this time fighting a lost cause?


In contrast to that


No, *Goo*. There is no "contrast" - LOL!!!! - at all. You have never
been able to say what is important "to the animals" about "getting to
experience life", because *nothing* is important about it. *BECAUSE*
there is no importance to it, *Goo*, there's nothing to consider.

You were done before you ever tried to learn to post to Usenet, *Goo*.

  #742 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-02-2013, 07:31 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 Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:28:23 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:13:38 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:25:12 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:13:46 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:15 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:56:01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:24 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:37:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:25 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:05:48 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, Goo agreed:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, Goo lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely blatantly:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
not all equal?" - James Hepler

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think he disagrees with himself then Goo? Also Goober, which
animals or beings of any kind do you want us to think don't derive the benefit
of getting to live, and why? Do you think any creatures DO derive the benefit of
getting to live Goob, and if so what do you think is the distinction between
them and livestock animals who you claim don't, do you have any idea?


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live Goo. Billions of them. Some of them have lives of positive
value and some of negative value, but you people can't appreciate or even
acknowledge the difference.

No moral meaning to that

Not to YOU Goo, but it has much meaning to people who honestly favor decent
AW over elimination.

It has no meaning

Goo people who honestly believe decent AW is ethically equivalent or
superior to elimination have no reason to oppose taking those same lives and
potential lives into consideration, you stupid STUPID Goober.

The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning

Of course it does Goo, and the fact that you have no clue how much it has is
something else that exposes you.

No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
including you.

It certainly has as much or more than their deaths Goob. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the animals' lives, Goo.

No, it does not. It has *NO* meaning at all

It sure does Goob and ONLY eliminationists are in a position to be unable to
appreciate the fact. And then ONLY the very stupid eliminationists are unable to
recognise the meaning at all. The more intelligent ones would recognise it even
if they were not able to appreciate it, as most likely no eliminationists are or
they would be AW advocates instead of eliminationists, Goo.

, *Goo* - zero. Their
deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally
troubling.

LOL!!! It's hilarious in the most pathetic of ways that you find ending
something you consider to be meaningless also morally troubling, Goo. LOL...what
a true Goober you are Goob.

Changing the course of action so that some animal lives
don't happen is meaningless

That part we know you can comprehend Goo, but how it has meaning when they
DO LIVE is one of the aspects you people are unable to appreciate and some of
you can't even comprehend.

It doesn't. "Getting to experience life" has no meaning "to the
animals"


In contrast to that seemingly idiotic claim, it has the meaning of
everything they ever experience both good and bad afawk, Goo.


No


It obviously necessarily does Goob. What do you think you could possibly
gain by stupidly and blatantly lying that it doesn't, Goo?
  #743 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-02-2013, 08:00 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 2/6/2013 11:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 2/4/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/4/2013 4:13 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:
On 1/30/2013 1:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 1/30/2013 12:13 PM,
[email protected] wrote:
On 1/28/2013 3:56 PM,****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 1/22/2013 3:37 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On 1/21/2013 7:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 1/21/2013 3:05 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* -
convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo*
- convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, ****wit David Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison -
*Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison
- *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David
Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting,
lied:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

[bullshit]

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to
experience
life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if

James Hepler told you point blank that your
"getting to
experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals
getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least
they
get
to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that
animals
don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to
live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live

No moral meaning to that, *Goo*, and James Hepler told you
so...as did
Martin Martens, John Mercer, Felix, Swamp, diderot, Illinois
Bowhunter,
and Sue Bishop.

Not to YOU

It has no meaning, period - zero.

people who honestly believe decent AW

The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning to
anyone,
*Goo*. That's just a fact - an indisputable fact.

Of course it does

No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
including you. You're just being pig-shit stubborn and stupid
again.

It certainly has as much or more than their deaths

No, it does not. It has *NO* meaning at all

It sure does and

No. It has no meaning at all, *Goo*.



*Goo* - zero. Their
deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally
troubling.

It's hilarious in the

No, *Goo*.

The fact they "get to experience life" has no meaning, *Goo* - you have
admitted it, *Goo* - and *THEREFORE*, *Goo*, if they never live at all,
that has no meaning, either. None.



Changing the course of action so that some animal lives
don't happen is meaningless *to the animals*. It *cannot* have any
meaning to the animals that are not going to exist, ****wit.

but how it has meaning when they DO LIVE

It doesn't. "Getting to experience life" has no meaning "to the
animals", *Goo*. There is nothing to consider about what's important
"to the animals", *Goo*

In all this time, *Goo* - over 14 years - you have not been able to say
what is important "to the animals" about "getting to experience life",
because *nothing* is important about it, and *THEREFORE*, there is
nothing to consider. You were done over 14 years ago, *Goo* - why have
you wasted all this time fighting a lost cause?

In contrast to that


No, *Goo*. There is no "contrast" - LOL!!!! - at all. You have never
been able to say what is important "to the animals" about "getting to
experience life", because *nothing* is important about it. *BECAUSE*
there is no importance to it, *Goo*, there's nothing to consider.

You were done before you ever tried to learn to post to Usenet, *Goo*.


It obviously necessarily does


No, *Goo* - there is nothing to consider, *Goo*, and you haven't even
come *close* to trying to say what might be worth consideration. The
whole thing has been a *FAILURE*, Goo - you have failed to make any kind
of case against "vegans".

  #744 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-05-2013, 06:17 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 1/21/2013 3:05 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.

[bullshit]

James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
was bullshit.

He asked if

James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
bullshit was pure bullshit.

LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
experience life" story is bullshit.

I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't
derive the benefit of getting to live

How do you think


James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
gibberish is bullshit.

They do live

No moral meaning to that, *Goo*, and James Hepler told you so...as did
Martin Martens, John Mercer, Felix, Swamp, diderot, Illinois Bowhunter,
and Sue Bishop.

Not to YOU


It has no meaning, period - zero.


people who honestly believe decent AW


The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning to anyone,
*Goo*. That's just a fact - an indisputable fact.



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 06:16 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