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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2013, 03:13 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.


The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and


No, that isn't the question.


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2013, 01:21 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 10
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.


The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and


No, that isn't the question.


Still think there's no harm in pullin' wings offa flies, eh?
You'd 'a' made a fine sonterkommando.

Dhu


--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2013, 03:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On 9/5/2013 5:21 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and


No, that isn't the question.


Still think there's no harm in pullin' wings offa flies, eh?


That isn't the topic, either.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2013, 10:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
..
On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, Goo wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.


The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and


No, that isn't the question.


That is ALL you care about Goober. You claim to eat meat:
__________________________________________________ _______
"I eat meat." - Goo

"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
when I didn't." - Goo
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
while you maniacally oppose giving any consideration to the lives of the animals
you dishonestly imo claim you consume:
__________________________________________________ _______
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

The statements below are all true.
Message-ID: t

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - 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
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
You may or may not eat meat but I believe you're lying and that you're some sort
of veg*n eliminationist Goob. Whether you really do eat a tiny bit of meat from
time to time or whether you don't though Goober, we KNOW you don't give the
animals' lives any consideration and you are maniacally opposed to anyone else
considering the life of any animal raised for food:

"no matter its quality of live" - Goo

All you claim to care about is the products with no consideration for the
animals' lives or the quality of their lives because and only because
considering that aspect works against elimination, Goo.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2013, 10:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
animals, and


No, that isn't the question.


That is ALL you


No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2013, 07:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
animals, and


No, that isn't the question.


That is ALL you


No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2013, 10:50 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:44:50 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:18:31 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, Goo wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and

No, that isn't the question.


That is ALL you care about Goober. You claim to eat meat:
________________________________________________ _________
"I eat meat." - Goo

"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
when I didn't." - Goo
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
while you maniacally oppose giving any consideration to the lives of the animals
you dishonestly imo claim you consume:
________________________________________________ _________
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

The statements below are all true.
Message-ID: t

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - 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
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
You may or may not eat meat but I believe you're lying and that you're some sort
of veg*n eliminationist Goob. Whether you really do eat a tiny bit of meat from
time to time or whether you don't though Goober, we KNOW you don't give the
animals' lives any consideration and you are maniacally opposed to anyone else
considering the life of any animal raised for food:

"no matter its quality of live" - Goo

All you claim to care about is the products with no consideration for the
animals' lives or the quality of their lives because and only because
considering that aspect works against elimination, Goo.


No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."


You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out
Goob. In contrast to that many animals certainly appear to benefit from lives of
positive value REGARDLESS of anything at all to do with "never existing". So
unless you can say what you want people to think prevents us from benefitting
from our lives, it will continue to appear clear that we do, Goo.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:01 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On 9/9/2013 2:50 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

On 9/6/2013 2:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
animals, and

No, that isn't the question.

That is ALL you


No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.


You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out


Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - cannot be a
benefit because it doesn't improve the entity's welfare.

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 10
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:01:16 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/9/2013 2:50 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

On 9/6/2013 2:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
animals, and

No, that isn't the question.

That is ALL you

No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.


You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out


Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - cannot be a
benefit because it doesn't improve the entity's welfare.

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.


That is only 'cause you don't consider
your existence to be a benefit to
anyone, including yourself.

Dhu



--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2013, 02:31 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,can.politics,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Animals' "getting to experience life"

On 9/9/2013 4:46 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:01:16 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/9/2013 2:50 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

On 9/6/2013 2:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/6/2013 2:18 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

On 9/5/2013 7:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic
animals, and

No, that isn't the question.

That is ALL you

No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.

You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out


Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - cannot be a
benefit because it doesn't improve the entity's welfare.

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*. You lost. Go do something else.


That is only 'cause you don't consider
your existence to be a benefit to
anyone, including yourself.


No entity's existence is a benefit to itself. It can't be - it didn't
improve the entity's welfare, and that's the definition of a benefit.

Now **** off, and stay ****ed off.



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
Montel Williams "HealthMaster" blender: anyone have experience? Kalmia General Cooking 6 05-02-2013 07:23 AM
"Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe Fred C. Dobbs[_3_] Vegan 13 24-06-2010 08:36 PM
70% of Antibiotics Used on "Food" Animals Mr.Smartypants[_4_] Vegan 0 26-01-2010 08:52 PM
One-cup coffee makers (no "pods" please) -- actual experience anyone? Terry[_3_] General Cooking 72 08-01-2010 06:36 AM
Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do not 'have'"rights". Laurie Vegan 8 24-06-2008 06:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017