 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:27:22 GMT, the Gonad wrote: > > >You are a shitbag, > > Explain what you're afraid might happen if people > deliberately try to contribute to decent lives for farm > animals with their lifestyle. Nothing would happen if people began to think like this, except the moral fibre of the human race would be weakened to that degree. What you are actually advocating is that people think of meat consumption as "contributing to the lives of farm animals", then you attempt to dress the idea up by adding the word "decent". We are not fooled. People can and should contribute to decent lives for farm animal with their food choices, *without* thinking of meat consumption as "contributing to the lives of farm animals". Henry Salt correctly and absolutely refuted this sophistry. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message news  > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:41:59 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:40:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > > wrote > >>> > >>>>>> All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! > >>>>> > >>>>>Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those > >>>>>things? > >>>>> > >>>>>So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a > >>>>>talking > >>>>>pig? > >>>> > >>>> That's what it is, like my fantasy about a typing cow. > >>> > >>>Exactly, so your objections have been bullshit, which says you have no > >>>REAL > >>>objections. > >>> > >>>>>You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the > >>>>>conscience of the meat consumer, > >>>> > >>>> No. It was intended to create the impression that pigs know they will > >>>> be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge. > >>> > >>>BULLSHIT! It conveys how the author believes we should think about > >>>livestock. > >> > >> Right. He wants people to think that livestock know they will be > >> slaughtered, > >> and suffer mentally from that knowledge. > > > >Actually the pig says he doesn't mind that part so much, he says "If, then, > >thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am:.." > > I noted that in the list of fantasies. You claimed right above that he intends to convey that the pig suffers from the knowledge he will be slaughtered, when in fact in the passage the pig accepts this fact, "so be it". > > >So you are dead > >wrong, you're not reading the passage for comprehension. > > > >In other words the author believes raising pigs for pork is not the real > >immoral thing, it's the self-serving rationalization that he finds > >offensive. So do I. > > You think it's okay to kill pigs, but bad to consider their lives. No, it's good to consider their lives, just wrong to consider their lives to be a justification for raising them as food. That is the sophistry you must abandon. But > as I've pointed out in the past, you are one extremely inconsiderate > person Dutch. > > >>>>>never the pig itself. > >>>>> > >>>>>What a lying asshole. > >>>> > >>>> They are both fantasies. > >>> > >>>They are rhetorical devices. > >> > >> Fantasies. > > > >I doesn't matter what you call it. It doesn't imply human abilities in pigs. > > > >>>They don't imply any powers in pigs or cows. > >> > >> The pigs or cows would be required to do things pigs and cows are not > >> capable of doing, in order for the fantasies to be taken seriously. > > > >The device is not meant to imply that pigs are actually capable of such > >things as speech. How could you even suggest that? > > Because the pigs or cows would be required to do things pigs and cows > are not capable of doing, in order for the fantasies to be taken seriously. That is based on a erroneous interpretation of the passage. > >>>> The difference between you and I is that > >>>> I know and admit it, but you either don't know it or won't admit it. If > >>>> there is any value in Salt's fantasy, then there is just as much value > >>>> in my fantasy. More in mine actually, since a greater percentage of > >>>> things in my fantasy are things that the animals are aware of. There > >>>> is practically nothing in Salt's fantasy that pigs could ever learn > >>>> about. > >>> > >>>That's not the point asshole! > >> > >> We are talking about things that are cruel *to the animals*. > > > >No we are not, this is not about cruelty to animals at all, > > It's not to YOU, It's not about cruelty at all. because you are extrememly inconsiderate, like I have > pointed out several times. To me it is the most important thing. To you it > is absolutely nothing. To me the lives of the animals are very important. > To you they are NOT to be considered. There is absolutely no reason at > all for me to admire you, or want to limit myself as you do, which really comes > down to only considering the things that benefit you. You are totally selfish > and inconsiderate Dutch, and I am very glad to be so different. blah blah.. > > >it is condemning > >a way of thinking that proposes that man may raise pigs for pork while at > >the same time claiming a moral victory because that same animal "experienced > >life". It has nothing to do with the pig, > > Not to you, because you are extremely inconsiderate. See the pattern? > In fact you're not only so inconsiderate that you're not capable of considering > the animals, but you are maniacally opposed to seeing anyone else consider > them. That goes beyond inconsiderate. Your "consideration" is shit. > >it has to do with immoral and > >unethical thinking. > > In all the years you've been going on about all this, you still haven't told > me what you're afraid might happen if people started to deliberately try to > contribute to decent lives for farm animals with their lifestyle. Answered in a recent post. > >> Most of the > >> things Salt's pig is talking about are things that pigs will never know > >> about, > >> and therefore are not cruel to them. They aren't even aware that they are > >> in danger while at the slaughterhouse, unless things go badly wrong. > > > >The paragraph is all about the last part of the sentence I began above, > >which goes "..but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy > >sophistry." > > Pigs know nothing about that. People know about it. > In your gross inconsideration you have no > clue why anyone would care more about things which are or are not cruel > to animals, than things which don't have anything to do with it. Cruelty is not the issue here, the issue is formation of a rational attitude towards the use of animals for food. > It is not for his sake, but for thine, that you want to *prevent* people from > considering the life of the pig. You are completely selfish and inconsiderate. > I mean that only in the best way Dutch, in case there's any chance of you > ever getting over it. Stop your pathetic ranting David. > >This is a message to people who use such devious and circular logic to > >justify something they do, it's not about the killing the pig at all. > > > >The passage.... > > ....the fantasies: > > "This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and > what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher?" > > 1. requiring that pigs are capable of replying to humans > > "Revered moralist," > > 2. requiring that pigs are aware of revered moralists > > "he might plead," > > 3. requiring that pigs understand the concept of pleading > > "fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day" > > 4. requiring that pigs contemplate time > > "a pig, " > > 5. requiring that pigs contemplate their own existence > > "and tomorrow" > > 6. requiring that pigs contemplate the future > > "but ham and sausages," > > 7. requiring that pigs understand their bodies will be butchered > and prepared in specific ways > > "to dispute with" > > 8. requiring that pigs understand and are capable of disputing > verbally with humans > > "a master of ethics," > > 9. similar to fantasy 2.. plus suggesting the pig considers that he/she > may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics" > > "yet to my porcine intellect" > > 10. requiring that pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect > > "it appeareth that having first determined to kill" > > 11. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately raise them > 12. requiring that pigs are aware of death > 13. requiring that pigs know they can be killed > 14. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately kill them > > "and devour me," > > 15. requiring that pigs know humans eat their dead bodies > > "thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason." > > 16. requiring that pigs consider what motivates human thinking > 17. requiring that pigs are aware of moral reasoning > 18. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because > humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a > moral reason" for devouring them > > "For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world" > > 19. requiring that pigs consider how they come into existence > > "my own predilection was in no wise considered," > > 20. requiring that pigs accurately understand what humans do and > do not consider > > " nor did I purchase life on condition" > > 21. requiring that pigs contemplate their own fate > 22. suggesting that pigs would rather they had never been born > > "of my own butchery." > > 6. > 7. > > "If, then, thou art firm set on pork," > > 23. requiring that pigs know humans eat meat > 24. requiring that pigs know they are "pork" > > "so be it," > > 25. requiring that pigs have that attitude about it... > > "for pork I am:" > > ...for that reason > > "but though thou hast not spared my life," > > 14. > > "at least spare me thy sophistry." > > 26. requiring that pigs would be able to understand human speach > 27. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because > humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry". > > "It is not for his sake, but for thine," > > 28. requiring that pigs understand the situation they are in > 29. requiring that pigs understand how the situation they are in > relates to humans > > "that in his life the Pig is filthily housed" > > 30. requiring that pigs are aware of filth > 31. requiring that pigs feel they are forced to live in filth > > "and fed," > > 32. requiring that pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them > 33. requiring that pigs feel what and or how they are fed is filthy > > "and at the end barbarously butchered." > > 34. requiring that pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies > after their death > > Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make > The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about > a talking pig. You're an idiot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:01:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message >news >> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:41:59 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> > wrote in message >> .. . >> >> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:40:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> > wrote >> >>> >> >>>>>> All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think >those >> >>>>>things? >> >>>>> >> >>>>>So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a >> >>>>>talking >> >>>>>pig? >> >>>> >> >>>> That's what it is, like my fantasy about a typing cow. >> >>> >> >>>Exactly, so your objections have been bullshit, which says you have no >> >>>REAL >> >>>objections. >> >>> >> >>>>>You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the >> >>>>>conscience of the meat consumer, >> >>>> >> >>>> No. It was intended to create the impression that pigs know they >will >> >>>> be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge. >> >>> >> >>>BULLSHIT! It conveys how the author believes we should think about >> >>>livestock. >> >> >> >> Right. He wants people to think that livestock know they will be >> >> slaughtered, >> >> and suffer mentally from that knowledge. >> > >> >Actually the pig says he doesn't mind that part so much, he says "If, >then, >> >thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am:.." >> >> I noted that in the list of fantasies. > >You claimed right above that he intends to convey that the pig suffers from >the knowledge he will be slaughtered, when in fact in the passage the pig >accepts this fact, "so be it". He wants people to feel badly for pigs because they are slaughtered, and his fantasy is to lead people to believe that pigs are aware that they will be slaughtered. Otherwise, he would not have written a fantasy about a pig who knows he will be slaughtered. Duh. >> >So you are dead >> >wrong, you're not reading the passage for comprehension. >> > >> >In other words the author believes raising pigs for pork is not the real >> >immoral thing, it's the self-serving rationalization that he finds >> >offensive. So do I. >> >> You think it's okay to kill pigs, but bad to consider their lives. > >No, it's good to consider their lives, just wrong to consider their lives to >be a justification for raising them as food. That is the sophistry you must >abandon. There are reasons why I should not, like the fact that billions of animals only exist because they are raised for food. So far you haven't provided even one good reason to abandon that fact. > But >> as I've pointed out in the past, you are one extremely inconsiderate >> person Dutch. >> >> >>>>>never the pig itself. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>What a lying asshole. >> >>>> >> >>>> They are both fantasies. >> >>> >> >>>They are rhetorical devices. >> >> >> >> Fantasies. >> > >> >I doesn't matter what you call it. It doesn't imply human abilities in >pigs. >> > >> >>>They don't imply any powers in pigs or cows. >> >> >> >> The pigs or cows would be required to do things pigs and cows are >not >> >> capable of doing, in order for the fantasies to be taken seriously. >> > >> >The device is not meant to imply that pigs are actually capable of such >> >things as speech. How could you even suggest that? >> >> Because the pigs or cows would be required to do things pigs and cows >> are not capable of doing, in order for the fantasies to be taken >seriously. > >That is based on a erroneous interpretation of the passage. No. It's based on the fact that fantasies should not be taken seriously, because they are not reality. >> >>>> The difference between you and I is that >> >>>> I know and admit it, but you either don't know it or won't admit it. >If >> >>>> there is any value in Salt's fantasy, then there is just as much >value >> >>>> in my fantasy. More in mine actually, since a greater percentage of >> >>>> things in my fantasy are things that the animals are aware of. There >> >>>> is practically nothing in Salt's fantasy that pigs could ever learn >> >>>> about. >> >>> >> >>>That's not the point asshole! >> >> >> >> We are talking about things that are cruel *to the animals*. >> > >> >No we are not, this is not about cruelty to animals at all, >> >> It's not to YOU, > >It's not about cruelty at all. It is to me. > because you are extrememly inconsiderate, like I have >> pointed out several times. To me it is the most important thing. To you it >> is absolutely nothing. To me the lives of the animals are very important. >> To you they are NOT to be considered. There is absolutely no reason at >> all for me to admire you, or want to limit myself as you do, which really >comes >> down to only considering the things that benefit you. You are totally >selfish >> and inconsiderate Dutch, and I am very glad to be so different. > >blah blah.. > >> >> >it is condemning >> >a way of thinking that proposes that man may raise pigs for pork while at >> >the same time claiming a moral victory because that same animal >"experienced >> >life". It has nothing to do with the pig, >> >> Not to you, because you are extremely inconsiderate. See the pattern? >> In fact you're not only so inconsiderate that you're not capable of >considering >> the animals, but you are maniacally opposed to seeing anyone else consider >> them. That goes beyond inconsiderate. > >Your "consideration" is shit. So is yours. And your opposition to considering things is worse. >> >it has to do with immoral and >> >unethical thinking. >> >> In all the years you've been going on about all this, you still >haven't told >> me what you're afraid might happen if people started to deliberately try >to >> contribute to decent lives for farm animals with their lifestyle. > >Answered in a recent post. Are you really stupid enough to think I might believe that lie? You will never explain what you're afraid of, or you would have done it a long time ago. You may very well keep on lying and say you've done it, but I don't ever expect you to actually do it. >> >> Most of the >> >> things Salt's pig is talking about are things that pigs will never know >> >> about, >> >> and therefore are not cruel to them. They aren't even aware that they >are >> >> in danger while at the slaughterhouse, unless things go badly wrong. >> > >> >The paragraph is all about the last part of the sentence I began above, >> >which goes "..but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me >thy >> >sophistry." >> >> Pigs know nothing about that. > >People know about it. I don't care what bothers you Dutch. What does and does not bother the animals matters. What does and does not bother YOU does not. The pattern remains the same: you only think about yourself to the point that you are opposed to anyone thinking about the animals. >> In your gross inconsideration you have no >> clue why anyone would care more about things which are or are not cruel >> to animals, than things which don't have anything to do with it. > >Cruelty is not the issue here, It is one of them. >the issue is formation of a rational attitude >towards the use of animals for food. > >> It is not for his sake, but for thine, that you want to *prevent* >people from >> considering the life of the pig. You are completely selfish and >inconsiderate. >> I mean that only in the best way Dutch, in case there's any chance of you >> ever getting over it. > >Stop your pathetic ranting David. > >> >This is a message to people who use such devious and circular logic to >> >justify something they do, it's not about the killing the pig at all. >> > >> >The passage.... >> >> ....the fantasies: >> >> "This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; >and >> what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher?" >> >> 1. requiring that pigs are capable of replying to humans >> >> "Revered moralist," >> >> 2. requiring that pigs are aware of revered moralists >> >> "he might plead," >> >> 3. requiring that pigs understand the concept of pleading >> >> "fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day" >> >> 4. requiring that pigs contemplate time >> >> "a pig, " >> >> 5. requiring that pigs contemplate their own existence >> >> "and tomorrow" >> >> 6. requiring that pigs contemplate the future >> >> "but ham and sausages," >> >> 7. requiring that pigs understand their bodies will be butchered >> and prepared in specific ways >> >> "to dispute with" >> >> 8. requiring that pigs understand and are capable of disputing >> verbally with humans >> >> "a master of ethics," >> >> 9. similar to fantasy 2.. plus suggesting the pig considers that he/she >> may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics" >> >> "yet to my porcine intellect" >> >> 10. requiring that pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect >> >> "it appeareth that having first determined to kill" >> >> 11. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately raise them >> 12. requiring that pigs are aware of death >> 13. requiring that pigs know they can be killed >> 14. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately kill them >> >> "and devour me," >> >> 15. requiring that pigs know humans eat their dead bodies >> >> "thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason." >> >> 16. requiring that pigs consider what motivates human thinking >> 17. requiring that pigs are aware of moral reasoning >> 18. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because >> humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a >> moral reason" for devouring them >> >> "For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world" >> >> 19. requiring that pigs consider how they come into existence >> >> "my own predilection was in no wise considered," >> >> 20. requiring that pigs accurately understand what humans do and >> do not consider >> >> " nor did I purchase life on condition" >> >> 21. requiring that pigs contemplate their own fate >> 22. suggesting that pigs would rather they had never been born >> >> "of my own butchery." >> >> 6. >> 7. >> >> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork," >> >> 23. requiring that pigs know humans eat meat >> 24. requiring that pigs know they are "pork" >> >> "so be it," >> >> 25. requiring that pigs have that attitude about it... >> >> "for pork I am:" >> >> ...for that reason >> >> "but though thou hast not spared my life," >> >> 14. >> >> "at least spare me thy sophistry." >> >> 26. requiring that pigs would be able to understand human speach >> 27. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because >> humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry". >> >> "It is not for his sake, but for thine," >> >> 28. requiring that pigs understand the situation they are in >> 29. requiring that pigs understand how the situation they are in >> relates to humans >> >> "that in his life the Pig is filthily housed" >> >> 30. requiring that pigs are aware of filth >> 31. requiring that pigs feel they are forced to live in filth >> >> "and fed," >> >> 32. requiring that pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them >> 33. requiring that pigs feel what and or how they are fed is filthy >> >> "and at the end barbarously butchered." >> >> 34. requiring that pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies >> after their death >> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make >> The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about >> a talking pig. > >You're an idiot. If so, then an idiot has pointed out more than you could ever figure out for yourself, and more than you will ever be able to understand. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:54:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:27:22 GMT, the Gonad wrote: >> >> >You are a shitbag, >> >> Explain what you're afraid might happen if people >> deliberately try to contribute to decent lives for farm >> animals with their lifestyle. > >Nothing would happen if people began to think like this, You're afraid that if people try to contribute to decent lives for farm animals, they will do so and that will destroy any chances you have of seeing them "ethically" eliminated. >except the moral >fibre of the human race would be weakened to that degree. You are not to be admired for "thinking" that if people contribute to decent lives for farm animals, it would weaken the moral fibre of the human race. >What you are actually advocating is that people think of meat consumption as >"contributing to the lives of farm animals", then you attempt to dress the >idea up by adding the word "decent". We are not fooled. People can and >should contribute to decent lives for farm animal with their food choices, >*without* thinking of meat consumption as "contributing to the lives of farm >animals". Even though it contributes to the lives of billions of them. Even though none of them would live if people did not eat meat, you don't want those facts taken into consideration. You are completely selfish and inconsiderate, along with being impressively stupid. >Henry Salt correctly and absolutely refuted this sophistry. He wrote a fantasy about a talking pig. The one I wrote about the typing cow is much more realistic, especially considering that in the end Salt's talking/singing pig was thankful that it got to live. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:01:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >You claimed right above that he intends to convey that the pig suffers from > >the knowledge he will be slaughtered, when in fact in the passage the pig > >accepts this fact, "so be it". > > He wants people to feel badly for pigs because they are slaughtered, > and his fantasy is to lead people to believe that pigs are aware that they > will be slaughtered. Otherwise, he would not have written a fantasy about > a pig who knows he will be slaughtered. Duh. If that's what he meant to say he would have had the pig object to being slaughtered, he didn't. He specifically had the pig accept the notion of being slaughtered as pork. > >> >So you are dead > >> >wrong, you're not reading the passage for comprehension. > >> > > >> >In other words the author believes raising pigs for pork is not the real > >> >immoral thing, it's the self-serving rationalization that he finds > >> >offensive. So do I. > >> > >> You think it's okay to kill pigs, but bad to consider their lives. > > > >No, it's good to consider their lives, just wrong to consider their lives to > >be a justification for raising them as food. That is the sophistry you must > >abandon. > > There are reasons why I should not, like the fact that billions of > animals only exist because they are raised for food. So far you haven't > provided even one good reason to abandon that fact. You can't abandon a *fact*, a fact is a fact, what you must abandon is the way you *use* the fact as a rationalization.Life per_se cannot morally be used as a rationalization, this has been demonstrated to you. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:45:59 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:01:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >You claimed right above that he intends to convey that the pig suffers >from >> >the knowledge he will be slaughtered, when in fact in the passage the pig >> >accepts this fact, "so be it". >> >> He wants people to feel badly for pigs because they are slaughtered, >> and his fantasy is to lead people to believe that pigs are aware that they >> will be slaughtered. Otherwise, he would not have written a fantasy about >> a pig who knows he will be slaughtered. Duh. > >If that's what he meant to say he would have had the pig object to being >slaughtered, he didn't. He specifically had the pig accept the notion of >being slaughtered as pork. So you're saying that pigs don't mind being killed, as long as humans don't consider that they only live because we raise them for food. How stupid! >> >> >So you are dead >> >> >wrong, you're not reading the passage for comprehension. >> >> > >> >> >In other words the author believes raising pigs for pork is not the >real >> >> >immoral thing, it's the self-serving rationalization that he finds >> >> >offensive. So do I. >> >> >> >> You think it's okay to kill pigs, but bad to consider their lives. >> > >> >No, it's good to consider their lives, just wrong to consider their lives >to >> >be a justification for raising them as food. That is the sophistry you >must >> >abandon. >> >> There are reasons why I should not, like the fact that billions of >> animals only exist because they are raised for food. So far you haven't >> provided even one good reason to abandon that fact. > >You can't abandon a *fact*, a fact is a fact, what you must abandon is the >way you *use* the fact as a rationalization.Life per_se cannot morally be >used as a rationalization, this has been demonstrated to you. No, it has not. I'm still waiting to see it, but by now have come to believe that can never happen. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message news  > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:45:59 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:01:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > >> >You claimed right above that he intends to convey that the pig suffers > >from > >> >the knowledge he will be slaughtered, when in fact in the passage the pig > >> >accepts this fact, "so be it". > >> > >> He wants people to feel badly for pigs because they are slaughtered, > >> and his fantasy is to lead people to believe that pigs are aware that they > >> will be slaughtered. Otherwise, he would not have written a fantasy about > >> a pig who knows he will be slaughtered. Duh. > > > >If that's what he meant to say he would have had the pig object to being > >slaughtered, he didn't. He specifically had the pig accept the notion of > >being slaughtered as pork. > > So you're saying that pigs don't mind being killed, No, I'm saying that Salt's essay is not about that at all. Salt thinks that we shouldn't kill pigs but he believes it's far worse to kill them *and then* declare doing so to be a moral victory. > as long as humans > don't consider that they only live because we raise them for food You can consider it all day, you just cannot consider it a moral victory. It's not. Raising animals for food is pure exploitaion, valid and justifable exploitation. >. How > stupid! Yes, you most certainly are. [..] > >> There are reasons why I should not, like the fact that billions of > >> animals only exist because they are raised for food. So far you haven't > >> provided even one good reason to abandon that fact. > > > >You can't abandon a *fact*, a fact is a fact, what you must abandon is the > >way you *use* the fact as a rationalization.Life per_se cannot morally be > >used as a rationalization, this has been demonstrated to you. > > No, it has not. I'm still waiting to see it, but by now have come to believe > that can never happen. A demonstration requires a person who is willing and able to hear it, you are neither. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:41:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:52:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> > wrote in message >>>news
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:45:59 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:>>>> >>>> > >>>> > wrote in message >>>> .. . >>>> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:01:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> >You claimed right above that he intends to convey that the pig >>>> >> >suffers >>>> >from >>>> >> >the knowledge he will be slaughtered, when in fact in the passage >>>> >> >the >>>pig >>>> >> >accepts this fact, "so be it". >>>> >> >>>> >> He wants people to feel badly for pigs because they are >>>slaughtered, >>>> >> and his fantasy is to lead people to believe that pigs are aware that >>>they >>>> >> will be slaughtered. Otherwise, he would not have written a fantasy >>>about >>>> >> a pig who knows he will be slaughtered. Duh. >>>> > >>>> >If that's what he meant to say he would have had the pig object to >>>> >being >>>> >slaughtered, he didn't. He specifically had the pig accept the notion >>>> >of >>>> >being slaughtered as pork. >>>> >>>> So you're saying that pigs don't mind being killed, >>> >>>No, I'm saying that Salt's essay is not about that at all. Salt thinks >>>that >>>we shouldn't kill pigs but he believes it's far worse to kill them *and >>>then* declare doing so to be a moral victory. >> >> If the pigs don't care then it's not cruel to them, which is very >> important >> to me but meaningless to you. > >Human morality is important to me. You only care about you, to the point that you're opposed to other people caring about anything that doesn't help you in some way. >>>> as long as humans >>>> don't consider that they only live because we raise them for food >>> >>>You can consider it all day, you just cannot consider it a moral victory. >> >> I can consider it any way I decide to consider it. > >Not and be moral. > >>>It's not. Raising animals for food is pure exploitaion, >> >> I consider that to be a lie. > >How can it be a lie? At worst it's an opinion you disagree with. > >>>valid and justifable >>>exploitation. >>> >>>>. How >>>> stupid! >>> >>>Yes, you most certainly are. >>> >>>[..] >>> >>>> >> There are reasons why I should not, like the fact that billions >>>> >> of >>>> >> animals only exist because they are raised for food. So far you >>>> >> haven't >>>> >> provided even one good reason to abandon that fact. >>>> > >>>> >You can't abandon a *fact*, a fact is a fact, what you must abandon is >>>the >>>> >way you *use* the fact as a rationalization.Life per_se cannot morally >>>> >be >>>> >used as a rationalization, this has been demonstrated to you. >>>> >>>> No, it has not. I'm still waiting to see it, but by now have come to >>>believe >>>> that can never happen. >>> >>>A demonstration requires a person who is willing and able to hear it, >> >> But even more than that it requires a person who is able to present the >> demonstration, which you have proven you're not able to do. You have >> tried to "demostrate" that life can not be given as much consideration as >> death in three pitiful ways, by: >> >> 1. simply saying it cannot be. >> 2. quoting a fantasy about an imaginary talking pig who says it cannot be. >> 3. insisting that people should think of raising animals for food and >> raising >> child sex slaves in the same way. >> >> None of the three demonstrates why life should not be given as much >> consideration as death. > >Yes they do, if you read them for comprenhension rather than deliberately >misconstruing them.. You can't understand them yourself because you're too selfish. To begin with, the purity of your selfishness causes you to resent anyone considering the animals involved, so you attack me. You found a fantasy about a talking pig who says not to care about the lives of the animals, and you "think" in some way that fantasy should influence the way people think about the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. In the fantasy the pig knows it will be killed, and the author is obviously trying to create in his readers the feeling that pigs are somehow aware they will be killed. To you the fantasy might just as well be reality, because you only care about you and you are aware that pigs are killed. To me it's just a children's story type fantasy about a talking pig, since pigs have no idea they will be killed and eaten. NONE OF THEM!!!!! ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Then we have you simply saying we can't consider their lives. Well, for one thing I can, and in fact can't forget about them. Billions of them. More of them every minute of every day. You try to forget about them because of the purity of your selfishness. I do *not!* want to be like you!!! Lastly we have you insisting that we "think" of raising animals for food and child sex slaves in the same way. Again the purity of your selfishness causes you to have a grossly twisted interpretation of reality. The vast majority of the animals raised for food never have sex with a human. Though there are other major dissimilarities, that one alone is enough for me to consider this miserable hoax of yours a children's story type fantasy along with the talking pig. > >>you >>>are neither. >> >> I have told you more about your supposed "demonstrations" than you >> can tell me about them. > >I have told you everything you need to know about them, it's time for you to >do some thinking. I give it a lot more thought that you ever will, and that's what you're opposed to. Can't you realise how stupid you appear to me for wanting me to think less, and then saying something like that? And then there's the talking pig fantasy, and the child sex slave pigs fantasy. How can you not understand why I think you must be some kind of a dumbass? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:39:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:41:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > wrote in message ... >>> >>>>>No, I'm saying that Salt's essay is not about that at all. Salt thinks that >>>>>we shouldn't kill pigs but he believes it's far worse to kill them *and >>>>>then* declare doing so to be a moral victory. >>>> >>>> If the pigs don't care then it's not cruel to them, which is very >>>>important to me but meaningless to you. >>> >>>Human morality is important to me. >> >> >> You only care about you > >No. Yes. >He cares about disabling lying ****wits like you. > > > >>>>>A demonstration requires a person who is willing and able to hear it, >>>> >>>> But even more than that it requires a person who is able to present the >>>>demonstration, which you have proven you're not able to do. You have >>>>tried to "demostrate" that life can not be given as much consideration as >>>>death in three pitiful ways, by: >>>> >>>>1. simply saying it cannot be. >>>>2. quoting a fantasy about an imaginary talking pig who says it cannot be. >>>>3. insisting that people should think of raising animals for food and >>>>raising >>>> child sex slaves in the same way. >>>> >>>>None of the three demonstrates why life should not be given as much >>>>consideration as death. >>> >>>Yes they do, if you read them for comprenhension rather than deliberately >>>misconstruing them.. >> >> >> You can't understand them yourself > >He does understand them. Apparently neither do you. >> Then we have you simply saying we can't consider their lives. > >He never says that. Which of them can we consider? How can we consider them? Why should we allow Dutch to decide which lives we can consider and how we can consider them? >He says that "consderation" of >their lives does NOT automatically mean that the >animals ought to live. Where exactly does he say that? If he does, which I seriously doubt, which particular imaginary non-existent potential future entities is he referring to, and why is he referring to "them"? >> Lastly we have you insisting that we "think" of raising animals for food and >> child sex slaves in the same way. > >No, he never says that at all. STOP lying. > >He points out some parallels, Like what? >which you can't address. Then you do it. >>>> I have told you more about your supposed "demonstrations" than you >>>>can tell me about them. >>> >>>I have told you everything you need to know about them, it's time for you to >>>do some thinking. >> >> >> I give it a lot more thought that you ever will > >No. In a week, you don't think as much as he does in >an hour. That's a lie. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:39:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison wrote: >> >> >>>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:41:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>****wit David Harrison wrote in message m... >>>> >>>> >>>>>>No, I'm saying that Salt's essay is not about that at all. Salt thinks that >>>>>>we shouldn't kill pigs but he believes it's far worse to kill them *and >>>>>>then* declare doing so to be a moral victory. >>>>> >>>>> If the pigs don't care then it's not cruel to them, which is very >>>>>important to me but meaningless to you. >>>> >>>>Human morality is important to me. >>> >>> >>> You only care about you >> >>No. > > > Yes. No. > > >>He cares about disabling lying ****wits like you. >> >> >> >> >>>>>>A demonstration requires a person who is willing and able to hear it, >>>>> >>>>> But even more than that it requires a person who is able to present the >>>>>demonstration, which you have proven you're not able to do. You have >>>>>tried to "demostrate" that life can not be given as much consideration as >>>>>death in three pitiful ways, by: >>>>> >>>>>1. simply saying it cannot be. >>>>>2. quoting a fantasy about an imaginary talking pig who says it cannot be. >>>>>3. insisting that people should think of raising animals for food and >>>>>raising >>>>> child sex slaves in the same way. >>>>> >>>>>None of the three demonstrates why life should not be given as much >>>>>consideration as death. >>>> >>>>Yes they do, if you read them for comprenhension rather than deliberately >>>>misconstruing them.. >>> >>> >>> You can't understand them yourself >> >>He does understand them. > >>> Then we have you simply saying we can't consider their lives. >> >>He never says that. > > > Which of them can we consider? Ones that DO live, not ones that only might. IF an animal lives, then by all means, give the quality of its life consideration. ****wit. Just don't say that "considering" their lives means one *ought* to eat meat. > > >>He says that "consderation" of >>their lives does NOT automatically mean that the >>animals ought to live. > > > Where exactly does he say that? In every post. > >>> Lastly we have you insisting that we "think" of raising animals for food and >>>child sex slaves in the same way. >> >>No, he never says that at all. STOP lying. >> >>He points out some parallels, > > > Like what? Like not using "at least they get to live" as an excuse for doing to them what you do. > > >>which you can't address. >> >>>>> I have told you more about your supposed "demonstrations" than you >>>>>can tell me about them. >>>> >>>>I have told you everything you need to know about them, it's time for you to >>>>do some thinking. >>> >>> >>> I give it a lot more thought that you ever will >> >>No. In a week, you don't think as much as he does in >>an hour. > > > That's the truth. You are not a thinker, ****wit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:40:54 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>Mr Harrison wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:39:11 GMT, the Gonad wrote: >> >> >>>Mr Harrison wrote: >>>> Then we have you simply saying we can't consider their lives. >>> >>>He never says that. >> >> >> Which of them can we consider? > >Ones that DO live, not ones that only might. It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid as you are Gonad. If they were, no one would have ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever thought to prepare in advance for having children. No one would have ever thought to build a chicken house before they got chickens. No one would have ever thought of raising animals for food. No one would have ever thought of raising animals as pets. No one would have ever thought of helping endangered wildlife populations to survive. No one would have ever thought...... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, the Gonad wrote:
wrote: >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid >> as you are. If they were, no one would have >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit > >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children OUGHT to live. >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider the lives of >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That position is >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. > >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, that I have >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I have >rendered you utterly useless here. You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less attack them Gonad. Maybe you've convinced everyone that you have, but anyone who believes that you have is stupid for believing so. That would make you the moron leading the morons. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit the lifelong loser wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > > >****wit the lifelong loser scribbled: > > >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid > >> as you are. If they were, no one would have > >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever > >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. > >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit > > > >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children OUGHT to live. > >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider the lives of > >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That position is > >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. > > > >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, that I have > >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I have > >rendered you utterly useless here. > > You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less > attack them Both. I've won. NO ONE follows you down the road to terminal ****wittery. NO ONE thinks that the way you "give consideration" to the lives of animals is to cause them to live in the first place. ONLY YOU, ****wit - only you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Jan 2005 13:01:23 -0800, the Gonad wrote:
>Mr Harrison wrote: >> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, the Gonad wrote: >> >> >Mr Harrison wrote: >> >> >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid >> >> as you are. If they were, no one would have >> >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever >> >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. >> >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit >> > >> >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children OUGHT to >live. >> >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider the lives >of >> >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That position >is >> >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. >> > >> >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, that I have >> >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I have >> >rendered you utterly useless here. >> >> You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less >> attack them > >Both. Neither. >I've won. LOL! You can't win if you never even try, and it's obvious that you're afraid to try. I challenge you to try Mr Gonad, and the first step in that is to acknowledge what my beliefs really are. Only if you ever do that will you ever be able to refute them, demolish them, win, or whatever it is you keep pretending that you're alrady doing. >NO ONE follows you down the road to terminal ****wittery. >NO ONE thinks that the way you "give consideration" to the lives of >animals is to cause them to live in the first place. People must decide whether or not they want to contribute to their lives. You "ARAs" want them to decide not to because: __________________________________________________ _______ 2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball "Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live in bad conditions. 09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct. 19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is nothing for any human to take into consideration 02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be no moral loss 27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball If they never live in the first place, there is no moral loss to humans, animals or the universe. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n Subject: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder Message-ID: .net> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:19:18 GMT 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. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s Subject: Article about animal interests Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:07:55 -0800 Message-ID: > "they follow...to its natural and logical conclusion." [That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination of domestic animals.] "You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other bizarre direction...all by yourself." [That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals' welfare instead of to eliminate them.] ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2005 13:01:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > > >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> > >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> > >> >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid > >> >> as you are. If they were, no one would have > >> >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever > >> >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. > >> >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit > >> > > >> >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children OUGHT to > >live. > >> >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider the lives > >of > >> >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That position > >is > >> >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. > >> > > >> >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, that I have > >> >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I have > >> >rendered you utterly useless here. > >> > >> You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less > >> attack them > > > >Both. I've won. > > You can't win if you never even try I tried, and I succeeded. I won, ****wit. EVERYONE rejects your ****wittery. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Jan 2005 09:58:02 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> On 24 Jan 2005 13:01:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> >> >> >> >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid >> >> >> as you are. If they were, no one would have >> >> >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever >> >> >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. >> >> >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit >> >> > >> >> >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children OUGHT to >> >live. >> >> >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider the >lives >> >of >> >> >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That >position >> >is >> >> >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. >> >> > >> >> >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, that I >have >> >> >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I have >> >> >rendered you utterly useless here. >> >> >> >> You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less >> >> attack them >> > >> >Both. I've won. >> >> You can't win if you never even try > >I tried, You are and always will be afraid to try. >and I succeeded. I won, ****wit. EVERYONE rejects your >****wittery. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2005 09:58:02 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> On 24 Jan 2005 13:01:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> > >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid > >> >> >> as you are. If they were, no one would have > >> >> >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever > >> >> >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. > >> >> >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit > >> >> > > >> >> >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children OUGHT to > >> >live. > >> >> >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider the > >lives > >> >of > >> >> >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That > >position > >> >is > >> >> >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. > >> >> > > >> >> >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, that I > >have > >> >> >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I have > >> >> >rendered you utterly useless here. > >> >> > >> >> You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less > >> >> attack them > >> > > >> >Both. I've won. > >> > >> You can't win if you never even try > > > >I tried, and I succeeded. I won, ****wit. EVERYONE rejects your > >****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Jan 2005 10:34:16 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
wrote: >> On 25 Jan 2005 09:58:02 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > >wrote: >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 13:01:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid >> >> >> >> as you are. If they were, no one would have >> >> >> >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever >> >> >> >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. >> >> >> >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit >> >> >> > >> >> >> >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children OUGHT >to >> >> >live. >> >> >> >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider the >> >lives >> >> >of >> >> >> >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That >> >position >> >> >is >> >> >> >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, that I >> >have >> >> >> >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I >have >> >> >> >rendered you utterly useless here. >> >> >> >> >> >> You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less >> >> >> attack them >> >> > >> >> >Both. I've won. >> >> >> >> You can't win if you never even try >> > >> >I tried, and I succeeded. I won, ****wit. EVERYONE rejects your >> >****wittery. > >EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so >animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. In order for me to lose, something would have to change so that animals no longer experience life because humans raise them for food, but I would have to believe that they still exist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2005 10:34:16 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > >****wit David Harrison wrote: > >> On 25 Jan 2005 09:58:02 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > > >wrote: > >> > >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 13:01:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid > >> >> >> >> as you are. If they were, no one would have > >> >> >> >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever > >> >> >> >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. > >> >> >> >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children OUGHT > >to > >> >> >live. > >> >> >> >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider the > >> >lives > >> >> >of > >> >> >> >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That > >> >position > >> >> >is > >> >> >> >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, that I > >> >have > >> >> >> >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I > >have > >> >> >> >rendered you utterly useless here. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less > >> >> >> attack them > >> >> > > >> >> >Both. I've won. > >> >> > >> >> You can't win if you never even try > >> > > >> >I tried, and I succeeded. I won, ****wit. EVERYONE rejects your > >> >****wittery. > > > >EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so > >animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. > > In order for me to lose You LOST, ****wit. You tried your little trick - "eat meat so farm animals will exist" - and you lost. NO ONE fell for it, ****wit. You lost, totally. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so >>animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. > > In order for me to lose, something would have to change so that > animals no longer experience life because humans raise them for > food, but I would have to believe that they still exist. No, in order for you lose it just has to be irrelevant, and it is. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:39:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>>EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so >>>animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. >> >> In order for me to lose, something would have to change so that >> animals no longer experience life because humans raise them for >> food, but I would have to believe that they still exist. > >No, in order for you lose it just has to be irrelevant, and it is. Not yet, because they still exist. It is relevant, just not relevant to you because you only care about YOU, and don't even have basic consideration for the animals. Not only do you not have basic consideration for the animals, but you don't want anyone else to either. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Jan 2005 11:08:16 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>****wit David Harrison wrote: >> On 25 Jan 2005 10:34:16 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > >wrote: >> >> >****wit David Harrison wrote: >> >> On 25 Jan 2005 09:58:02 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 13:01:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> >> >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid >> >> >> >> >> as you are. If they were, no one would have >> >> >> >> >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever >> >> >> >> >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. >> >> >> >> >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children >OUGHT >> >to >> >> >> >live. >> >> >> >> >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider >the >> >> >lives >> >> >> >of >> >> >> >> >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That >> >> >position >> >> >> >is >> >> >> >> >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, >that I >> >> >have >> >> >> >> >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I >> >have >> >> >> >> >rendered you utterly useless here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less >> >> >> >> attack them >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Both. I've won. >> >> >> >> >> >> You can't win if you never even try >> >> > >> >> >I tried, and I succeeded. I won, ****wit. EVERYONE rejects your >> >> >****wittery. >> > >> >EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so >> >animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. >> >> In order for me to lose > >You LOST, ****wit. You tried your little trick - "eat meat so farm >animals will exist" - and you lost. NO ONE fell for it, ****wit. You >lost, totally. Not yet Gonad, because the animals are still there even if "NO ONE fell for it". |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:39:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >****wit David Harrison wrote > >> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > >>>EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so > >>>animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. > >> > >> In order for me to lose, something would have to change so that > >> animals no longer experience life because humans raise them for > >> food, but I would have to believe that they still exist. > > > >No, in order for you lose it just has to be irrelevant, and it is. > > Not yet, because they still exist. Yes, NOW. No one is adhering to your ****witted, demented "eat meat so animals will exist" crapola. EVERYONE, on both sides, rejects your ****wittery. Omnivores were already eating meat, and NONE of them eats meat in order to "give life" to farm animals. "vegans" STILL aren't eating meat, because they see along with everyone else that eating meat in order to cause farm animals to exist is NOT conferring any benefit on animals. You LOST, ****wit. Five and a half years you've been trying this bullshit, and you LOST utterly: not ONE single convert to your ****witted cause. > It is relevant It is IRRELEVANT. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:39:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > wrote >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >>>>EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so >>>>animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. >>> >>> In order for me to lose, something would have to change so that >>> animals no longer experience life because humans raise them for >>> food, but I would have to believe that they still exist. >> >>No, in order for you lose it just has to be irrelevant, and it is. > > Not yet, because they still exist. And it's still irrelevant. > It is relevant, Nope > just not relevant > to you because you only care about YOU, and don't even have > basic consideration for the animals. Not only do you not have > basic consideration for the animals, but you don't want anyone > else to either. How does your "basic consideration" benefit any animal or person? What is this "basic consideration" that I am withholding from them? How are they harmed by my withholding of it? Does my withholding of this "basic consideration" have ANY effect at all on any animal or any human? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2005 11:08:16 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > >****wit David Harrison wrote: > >> On 25 Jan 2005 10:34:16 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > > >wrote: > >> > >> >****wit David Harrison wrote: > >> >> On 25 Jan 2005 09:58:02 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > > >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 13:01:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 24 Jan 2005 10:26:52 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison the chicken****er wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> It's lucky that everyone isn't as completely stupid > >> >> >> >> >> as you are. If they were, no one would have > >> >> >> >> >> ever thought of birth control. No one would have ever > >> >> >> >> >> thought to prepare in advance for having children. > >> >> >> >> >> No one would have ever thought blah blah blah bullshit > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >****wit: NONE of those measures says that the children > >OUGHT > >> >to > >> >> >> >live. > >> >> >> >> >Face it, ****wit: you want people to interpret "consider > >the > >> >> >lives > >> >> >> >of > >> >> >> >> >animals" to MEAN "they should cause animals to live". That > >> >> >position > >> >> >> >is > >> >> >> >> >STUPID and ****WITTED, ****wit, and no one is buying it. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >I continue to demonstrate, ****wit, with each exchange, > >that I > >> >> >have > >> >> >> >> >chopped your legs off. No one accepts your ****wittery. I > >> >have > >> >> >> >> >rendered you utterly useless here. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You haven't even begun to address my beliefs, much less > >> >> >> >> attack them > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Both. I've won. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You can't win if you never even try > >> >> > > >> >> >I tried, and I succeeded. I won, ****wit. EVERYONE rejects your > >> >> >****wittery. > >> > > >> >EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so > >> >animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. > >> > >> In order for me to lose > > > >You LOST, ****wit. You tried your little trick - "eat meat so farm > >animals will exist" - and you lost. NO ONE fell for it, ****wit. You > >lost, totally. > > Not yet Yes, NOW: no one is following you into your demented "eat meat so animals will exist" shitpile. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>You LOST, ****wit. You tried your little trick - "eat meat so farm >>animals will exist" - and you lost. NO ONE fell for it, ****wit. You >>lost, totally. > > Not yet Gonad, because the animals are still there even if "NO ONE > fell for it". And that fact is just as meaningless as it always has been. You can sit in your ******** boat and think about those animals all day, every day for the rest of your life and it will still mean nothing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:09:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>>You LOST, ****wit. You tried your little trick - "eat meat so farm >>>animals will exist" - and you lost. NO ONE fell for it, ****wit. You >>>lost, totally. >> >> Not yet Gonad, because the animals are still there even if "NO ONE >> fell for it". > >And that fact is just as meaningless as it always has been. You can sit in >your ******** boat and think about those animals all day, every day for the >rest of your life and it will still mean nothing. And you can sit on your thumb and think how meaningless it is all day, every day for the rest of your life, and the animals will still be there. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:39:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> > wrote >>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>>>>EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so >>>>>animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. >>>> >>>> In order for me to lose, something would have to change so that >>>> animals no longer experience life because humans raise them for >>>> food, but I would have to believe that they still exist. >>> >>>No, in order for you lose it just has to be irrelevant, and it is. >> >> Not yet, because they still exist. > >And it's still irrelevant. > >> It is relevant, > >Nope > >> just not relevant >> to you because you only care about YOU, and don't even have >> basic consideration for the animals. Not only do you not have >> basic consideration for the animals, but you don't want anyone >> else to either. > >How does your "basic consideration" benefit any animal or person? It doesn't. How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit any animal or person? >What is >this "basic consideration" that I am withholding from them? How are they >harmed by my withholding of it? Does my withholding of this "basic >consideration" have ANY effect at all on any animal or any human? No. And it can't either. But if more people develop such consideration then products which promote decent lives for livestock could very well become popular, and THAT is exactly what you are really opposed to. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Jan 2005 13:58:47 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>****wit David Harrison wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:39:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >****wit David Harrison wrote >> >> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> > >> >>>EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so >> >>>animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost. >> >> >> >> In order for me to lose, something would have to change so that >> >> animals no longer experience life because humans raise them for >> >> food, but I would have to believe that they still exist. >> > >> >No, in order for you lose it just has to be irrelevant, and it is. >> >> Not yet, because they still exist. > >Yes, No. >NOW. No one is adhering to your ****witted, demented "eat meat so >animals will exist" crapola. EVERYONE, on both sides, rejects your >****wittery. Omnivores were already eating meat, and NONE of them eats >meat in order to "give life" to farm animals. "vegans" STILL aren't >eating meat, because they see along with everyone else that eating meat >in order to cause farm animals to exist is NOT conferring any benefit >on animals. > >You LOST, ****wit. Five and a half years you've been trying this >bullshit, and you LOST utterly: not ONE single convert to your >****witted cause. > >> It is relevant > >It is IRRELEVANT. No. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > > >How does your "basic consideration" benefit any animal or person? > > It doesn't. How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit > any animal or person? Strawman: he doesn't oppose "basic consideration" of animals lives, he just wants to limit it to animals who DO exist. You want to pervert "consideration" into SUPPORT for the continued existence of farm animals. You want people to think "eat meat so that farm animals will exist." NO ONE is following you down that road to ****wittery, ****wit. > > >What is > >this "basic consideration" that I am withholding from them? How are they > >harmed by my withholding of it? Does my withholding of this "basic > >consideration" have ANY effect at all on any animal or any human? > > No. Then you don't have a thing to say. > And it can't either. But if more people develop such consideration > then products which promote decent lives for livestock IF the animals exist... > could very well > become popular, and THAT is exactly what you are really opposed to. No, that is what he is VERY MUCH in favor of. IF people are going to eat meat, THEN he wants them to choose their meat products so as to steer animal husbandry towards improved welfare for animals. What he does NOT do is suggest that people OUGHT to eat meat so that farm animals will exist. That's what YOU suggest, ****wit, and it's ****witted, stupid, and no one is buying it. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Muffin Logic | General Cooking | |||
| Logic of terroir | Wine | |||
| The real logic of what we should be eating | General Cooking | |||
| spinach logic | General Cooking | |||
| FAQ logic - Water | Tea | |||
Linear Mode
