Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 in message ... > 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. I don't advocate thinking about meaningless factlettes. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> 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. Then why should anyone consider it? >How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit > any animal or person? It entertains me to shoot down stupid arguments like yours. >>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. "The Logic of The Larder" will never become popular. It is transparently self-serving sophistry to anyone with the brain power of a 10 year-old. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dutch wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison wrote > > > >>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? Excellent questions. Here's another: why does ****wit suppose "vegans" have NOT given due consideration, and simply reached a different conclusion (farm animals ought not exist) than the one ****wit reaches (there ought to be farm animals)? It seems to me they HAVE given due consideration. In their opinion - not mine, not yours - the fact of killing farm animals always morally outweighs any good treatment they may have received. ****wit has not given them any reason to come to a different conclusion, except for his implied belief that "vegans" are doing evil by not causing farm animals to exist. As that belief is plainly absurd, "vegans" have no reason to pay any attention to ****wit's tired tale. > > > > 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. > > "The Logic of The Larder" will never become popular. It is transparently > self-serving sophistry to anyone with the brain power of a 10 year-old. Note that in the Logic of the Larder, the philosopher at least has the decency only to apply the ****witted thinking to himself; he is not so arrogant as to presume to admonish others that they also "ought" to look at farm animals' lives as he does. ****wit commits this mistake (due to arrogance). ****wit believes not only that he is doing a good deed to farm animals by causing them to exist, but that anyone who DOESN'T see the situation that way, EVEN IF THEY EAT MEAT, is doing wrong. This explains why he condemns all the omnivores who have considered and rejected his stupid story here as being "selfish". It isn't good enough for ****wit that you *do* eat meat and thereby cause animals to "get to experience life"; ****wit demands that you view it as a good deed leading to some kind of moral imperative, and that you condemn anyone who doesn't look at it in that ****witted way. What a colossal sack of shit ****wit it! |
|
|||
|
|||
Ron wrote:
> In article >, > Oz > wrote: > > Dogs do not live in harmony with humans. They are enslaved. They are > removed from their parents and their siblings and forced to live amonst > humans. Wrong, of course. You've never read *anything* about dogs; you're just spewing your typical knew-jerk sophistry. If you had read anything by Stephen Budiansky on the subject of dogs, you'd know there is a developing body of belief among zoologists and anthropologists that rather than having been domesticated by humans, dogs domesticated themselves, as an evolutionary "strategy". Of course, you won't use the more-than-sufficient information I've given you to do some research on this and possibly discard your ignorant biases; you PREFER your ignorance and irrational bias. > > This is not a natural relationship for any human. That's a moral judgment you're projecting. It's a moral judgment based on ignorance - par for the course with you. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>> 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. > >Then why should anyone consider it? > >>How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit >> any animal or person? > >It entertains me to shoot down stupid arguments like yours. > >>>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. > >"The Logic of The Larder" will never become popular. It may or may not, but one thing for sure is that you "ARAs" hope it never does. >It is transparently >self-serving sophistry to anyone with the brain power of a 10 year-old. What do you have to offer that is less self-serving? Answer: nothing. |
|
|||
|
|||
****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > wrote > >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > >>>> 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. > > > >Then why should anyone consider it? > > > >>How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit > >> any animal or person? > > > >It entertains me to shoot down stupid arguments like yours. > > > >>>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. > > > >"The Logic of The Larder" will never become popular. > > It may or may not, but one thing for sure is that you "ARAs" He isn't an "ara". Neither am I. You already know that. > hope it never does. That's right! It's ****witted sophistry. > > >It is transparently > >self-serving sophistry to anyone with the brain power of a 10 year-old. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > wrote >>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>> 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. >> >>Then why should anyone consider it? This is a critical point. >>>How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit >>> any animal or person? >> >>It entertains me to shoot down stupid arguments like yours. >> >>>>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. >> >>"The Logic of The Larder" will never become popular. > > It may or may not, but one thing for sure is that you "ARAs" hope > it never does. Nobody likes it, ARAs, anti-ARAs, we all recognize it for the shallow circular reasoning that it is. It's an embarrassment to the anti-AR movement. >>It is transparently >>self-serving sophistry to anyone with the brain power of a 10 year-old. > > What do you have to offer that is less self-serving? Answer: nothing. I defend our right to use animals, humanely. I challenge the faulty logic and hypocrisy of those who use sophistry, lies or false arguments to try to take away those rights. If I am going to attack vegans and ARAs for those tactics I can't sit back while someone like you who claims to also be against AR does it. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:52:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> > wrote >>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>> 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. >>> >>>Then why should anyone consider it? > >This is a critical point. It depends on what a person wants. Somewhere along the way some people made it known that they would pay extra for cage free eggs. Why would they do it? I do it to contribute to decent lives for hens, instead of to battery cages or nothing. Why else would people do it? I don't know, and so far no one has told me. I damn sure don't do it because it helps me, and I'm not going to pay extra to help chickens and not allow myself to consider the chickens. If you're going to claim that you do it, it only makes me think you're lying. But if you really do it, it would just make you that much more stupid. >>>>How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit >>>> any animal or person? >>> >>>It entertains me to shoot down stupid arguments like yours. >>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>"The Logic of The Larder" will never become popular. >> >> It may or may not, but one thing for sure is that you "ARAs" hope >> it never does. > >Nobody likes it, ARAs, anti-ARAs, we all recognize it for the shallow >circular reasoning that it is. It's an embarrassment to the anti-AR >movement. Of course I feel the same way about the pure selfishness that you not only suggest, but insist on. That's one major reason I believe you're an "ARA". What meat consumer would be inconsiderate enough to insist that it's okay to eat meat, provided we don't consider the lives of the animals we eat? The Inuits went to the trouble of making their weapons beautiful in honor of the animals, and on the other extreme we have you insisting that we don't even acknowledge them. Why would any meat consumer insist on such selfish inconsideration of the animals we eat? >>>It is transparently >>>self-serving sophistry to anyone with the brain power of a 10 year-old. >> >> What do you have to offer that is less self-serving? Answer: nothing. > >I defend our right to use animals, humanely. Not less self-serving. >I challenge the faulty logic >and hypocrisy of those who use sophistry, lies or false arguments to try to >take away those rights. Again not less self-serving. As I said, the answser is nothing. But I'm still interested in seeing it if you can ever come up with something. >If I am going to attack vegans and ARAs for those >tactics I can't sit back while someone like you who claims to also be >against AR does it. Maybe you are as stupid as you act, but even after several years you still haven't convinced me. I can't help but believe you're an "ARA". From the talking pig, to the crop field animals, to the child sex slave pigs grotesquery, to the insistance that meat consumers be totally inconsiderate of the lives of farm animals, they all SCREAM of "AR". |
|
|||
|
|||
****wit David Harrison stupid cheeselog wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:52:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > >****wit David Harrison stupid cheeselog wrote > >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>****wit David Harrison stupid cheeselog wrote > >>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>> > >>>Then why should anyone consider it? > > > >This is a critical point. > > It depends on what a person wants. Yes, I suppose. If some idiot redneck chicken****er thinks there is some moral imperative that there "ought" to be farm animals, then he should eat meat. If he doesn't think there is such an imperative, then he can eat meat or not. > Somewhere along the way > some people made it known that they would pay extra for cage > free eggs. Why would they do it? I do it to contribute to decent > lives for hens, instead of to battery cages or nothing. NO, ****wit. Not "instead of nothing". The choice is not "eggs from free range hens" or "no life for hens". There are two choices: whether or not to eat eggs at all; what kind of eggs to eat. > Why else > would people do it? I don't know, and so far no one has told me. Most people don't like to engage with you, ****wit. You're an annoying asshole. > I damn sure don't do it because it helps me, and I'm not going to > pay extra to help chickens and not allow myself to consider the > chickens. Presumably you do it - I'm not persuaded you really do it at all - because IF there are hens laying eggs, you want the hens to have a better welfare. But no sensible person is going to eat eggs in the first place in order to ensure that chickens exist. ONLY YOU would think of doing that, ****wit. > >>> > >>>"The Logic of The Larder" will never become popular. > >> > >> It may or may not, but one thing for sure is that you "ARAs" hope > >> it never does. > > > >Nobody likes it, ARAs, anti-ARAs, we all recognize it for the shallow > >circular reasoning that it is. It's an embarrassment to the anti-AR > >movement. > > Of course I feel the same way about the pure selfishness that you not > only suggest, but insist on. He isn't insisting on any selfishness, ****wit. He's insisting on common sense. Your ****wittery is absurd. You are deliberately mixing up the decision to eat eggs with the decision about the source of the eggs IF you decide to eat them at all. That's just ****witted, ****wit. You are choosing to eat eggs in the first place because you WANT chickens to exist, for some ****ed up reason. No one else approaches the choice of whether or not to eat eggs with that criterion in mind. You insist they should, and EVERYONE, "vegan" and omnivore alike, tells you you're a full-of-shit ****wit. You are. > > >>>It is transparently > >>>self-serving sophistry to anyone with the brain power of a 10 year-old. > >> > >> What do you have to offer that is less self-serving? Answer: nothing. > > > >I defend our right to use animals, humanely. > > Not less self-serving. YOU are the self-serving one here, ****wit. It is not "for the chickens" that you eat eggs, but "for ****wit": YOU get some kind of pleasure out of knowing there are chickens. You stupidly, ****wittedly think you are doing some kind of "good deed" to chickens by causing them to exist, and you are not. > > >I challenge the faulty logic > >and hypocrisy of those who use sophistry, lies or false arguments to try to > >take away those rights. > > Again AGAIN, ****wit: your belief that you are doing the chickens some kind of good deed is silly, easily discarded sophistry. > > >If I am going to attack vegans and ARAs for those > >tactics I can't sit back while someone like you who claims to also be > >against AR does it. > > Maybe you are as He is attacking you for your stupid sophistry, ****wit. You've lost. |
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 |