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
  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-01-2005, 11:09 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-01-2005, 11:24 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-01-2005, 11:28 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-01-2005, 11:37 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-01-2005, 11:37 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****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.



  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-01-2005, 11:39 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-01-2005, 11:46 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-01-2005, 02:44 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!

  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-01-2005, 02:53 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-01-2005, 03:13 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-01-2005, 04:06 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****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.

  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-01-2005, 04:52 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-01-2005, 07:19 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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".
  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-01-2005, 03:28 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****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
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
Muffin Logic Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 0 06-01-2012 07:05 PM
Logic of terroir Max Hauser Wine 16 16-04-2007 10:44 AM
The real logic of what we should be eating PeterL General Cooking 71 18-02-2007 04:09 AM
spinach logic Julia Altshuler General Cooking 10 16-09-2006 07:49 PM
FAQ logic - Water Bluesea Tea 33 16-02-2005 02:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017