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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 03:53 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article [email protected],
"formerly known as 'cat arranger'"
wrote:



I believe that existence is a benefit.
It seems that species are incorrectly
divided up into individuals when they
they really are more of a continuum.
So the benefit of existence is to the
parents and the species. To the parents
in that their genes and their need to
continue is fulfilled and to the species
in that it is continued.


Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off
for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species
is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time.
What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the
individual members of the species will die so that the species can
flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death.

Not to the individual animal.



The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children


The parent would probably gladly trade some room and
resources for some additional time.


Greedy and selfish. Frankly, I just don't see the difference if someone
dies at 72 or 75. It's only time.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 03:53 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article [email protected],
"formerly known as 'cat arranger'"
wrote:



I believe that existence is a benefit.
It seems that species are incorrectly
divided up into individuals when they
they really are more of a continuum.
So the benefit of existence is to the
parents and the species. To the parents
in that their genes and their need to
continue is fulfilled and to the species
in that it is continued.


Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off
for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species
is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time.
What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the
individual members of the species will die so that the species can
flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death.

Not to the individual animal.



The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children


The parent would probably gladly trade some room and
resources for some additional time.


Greedy and selfish. Frankly, I just don't see the difference if someone
dies at 72 or 75. It's only time.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 03:54 PM
Tim
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
news ..
On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to
a
well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all
sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of
water.
Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me.


Livestock Suffer, Too
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html



Agreed. Factory farming methods cause suffering. But not all methods of
animal raising cause suffering. So not all livestock suffer.


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 03:54 PM
Tim
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
news ..
On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to
a
well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all
sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of
water.
Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me.


Livestock Suffer, Too
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html



Agreed. Factory farming methods cause suffering. But not all methods of
animal raising cause suffering. So not all livestock suffer.


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 03:55 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article t,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



Ron wrote:



In article [email protected],
"formerly known as 'cat arranger'"
wrote:




I believe that existence is a benefit.
It seems that species are incorrectly
divided up into individuals when they
they really are more of a continuum.
So the benefit of existence is to the
parents and the species. To the parents
in that their genes and their need to
continue is fulfilled and to the species
in that it is continued.


Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off
for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species
is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time.
What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the
individual members of the species will die so that the species can
flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death.

Not to the individual animal.


The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children


The parent would probably gladly trade some room and
resources for some additional time.



Greedy and selfish.


Your opinion. You have revealed yourself to hold
primitive, poorly developed opinions.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:03 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t,
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Ron wrote:

In article t,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article ,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



Ron wrote:



In article [email protected],
"formerly known as 'cat arranger'"
wrote:




I believe that existence is a benefit.
It seems that species are incorrectly
divided up into individuals when they
they really are more of a continuum.
So the benefit of existence is to the
parents and the species. To the parents
in that their genes and their need to
continue is fulfilled and to the species
in that it is continued.


Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off
for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species
is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time.
What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the
individual members of the species will die so that the species can
flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death.

Not to the individual animal.


The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children

The parent would probably gladly trade some room and
resources for some additional time.



Greedy and selfish.


Your opinion. You have revealed yourself to hold
primitive, poorly developed opinions.


I know. The "me" generation certainly changed that perspective for many
people. I was always told by people that they would happily give their
lives for their children. Window dressing, I imagine.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:11 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:53:58 GMT, "misanthrope" wrote:

animal rights is an issue in which i have no interest, and i therefore feel
i'm unqualified to pronounce upon it.


That doesn't mean human influence on animals should not be
discussed in a philosophy group. It may well be that none of you
care about it, but that doesn't mean it's not appropriate. And it is
certainly more appropriate than whining and crying because other
people are discussing it like your buddy Jones.

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:57:51 GMT, "misanthrope"

wrote:

wrote in message
.. .


Well, if instead of discussing the topic you simply complain about
it being brought up, that *could* have a negative influence as well,
imo.

that would be valid point in the case of valid topics, but it's not valid
for posts that contain nothing more than back-biting garbage.


Some farm animals benefit from farming and some do not.
The so called "Animal Rights" people believe that no farm
animals benefit from farming, which is absurd. Maybe you
don't think human influence on animals has anything to
do with philosophy, but I feel sure some philosophers have
discussed it.
The "ARAs" in their desperation have decided to
promote the idea that life has never been a benefit to
anything. But life is the benefit which allows zygotes to
grow into animals, so every animal has benefitted from
life in at least that way. Life is the benefit which makes
all others possible.
Life itself and the individual lives of animals are completely
different things, and just because life itself is a benefit it
doesn't mean that all of the things experienced in the life
of a being are a benefit to the being.
When I post things to the philosophy group I'm hoping
that you guys would have covered all that sort of thing
and could add something interesting that we have not
already been over. Even though you apparently don't
want to discuss it, I still believe such topics are not
inappropriate for philosophers to discuss.


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...osophy&x=0&y=0

Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from
Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
[...]
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding
of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational
means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing
fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or
regarding a sphere of activity or thought the philosophy of war
philosophy of science
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual
or group



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:11 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 18 Jan 2005 08:37:42 -0800, "John Jones" wrote:

**** off from here then


You're the one who doesn't like it, so you **** off. Go hang out in
alt.whiners.crybabies or something.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:14 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
In article t,
Rudy Canoza wrote:


anal leakage wrote:


In article t,
Rudy Canoza wrote:



Not to the individual animal.


The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children

The parent would probably gladly trade some room and
resources for some additional time.


Greedy and selfish.


Your opinion. You have revealed yourself to hold
primitive, poorly developed opinions.



I know.


Well, then, why don't you try to think out and develop
your opinions a little better?

The POINT, little leaky homo/sophist, is that the
parent probably would like some additional time and
would be willing to live on fewer resources and in less
space, so your claim that death is a "benefit" is
contradicted, no matter what your subjective, poorly
developed MORAL opinion on the matter might be.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:18 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:50:31 -0800, "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" wrote:


I believe that existence is a benefit.


Life is the benefit which allows zygotes to grow into animals.
Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

It seems that species are incorrectly
divided up into individuals


They are divided up into individuals. You should know that
from the cats, if nothing else.

when they
they really are more of a continuum.


That depends on what you are discussing specifically...

So the benefit of existence is to the
parents


....like there you're discussing individuals...

and the species.


....and there the species.

To the parents
in that their genes and their need to
continue is fulfilled and to the species
in that it is continued.

But it is a sort of false benefit in that the
species can be continued quite well without
farming


· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begin their particular lives. Those particular animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on that
industry, and will only experience life if humans continue to
consume them. ·

and most meat eaters could not
care less about a species except for the
benefit of their bloody meat.





  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:20 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:05:57 GMT, the Gonad wrote:

formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
I believe that existence is a benefit.


No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an
entity better off; that is, something that improves the
welfare of an entity.

Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare
that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did
not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence
therefore CANNOT be a benefit.


Life is the benefit which allows zygotes to grow into animals.
Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. It's not a
sure sign of stupidity if a person can't figure that out for
himself--maybe--but it is a sure sign of stupidity if a person
can't understand it even after it has been pointed out to him.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:21 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:19:00 -0500, Ron wrote:

In article t,
the Gonad wrote:

formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
I believe that existence is a benefit.


No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an
entity better off; that is, something that improves the
welfare of an entity.


What is a "benefit" is also subjective.


The Gonad has not been--and apparently never will
be--able to provide an example of a definition backing
up his claim. If he could have he would have done it
by now, and would have done it repeatedly.

Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare
that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did
not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence
therefore CANNOT be a benefit.


  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:22 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:53:43 -0500, "Tim" wrote:


the Gonad wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:57:51 GMT, "misanthrope"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:18 GMT, "misanthrope"

wrote:

Yes, if it ever was, it's too bad that it isn't any more. I've
posted
to it more than once and don't recall anything useful or interesting
coming from it, so I can't be blamed for its downfall.

then just maybe it's the wrong group for you.


it not only deters new members but also drives
away old ones, and can in the long run kill the group.

Well, if instead of discussing the topic you simply complain about
it being brought up, that *could* have a negative influence as well,
imo.

that would be valid point in the case of valid topics, but it's not valid
for posts that contain nothing more than back-biting garbage.


Some farm animals benefit from farming and some do not.


NO farmed animals benefit from farming. Existing per se is not a benefit.


On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to a
well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all
sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of water.
Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me.


"ARAs" can't afford to consider such things, and as we can see they are
very much opposed to other people considering such things as well. Doesn't
it seem strange that the people who say they care about animals, don't care
about animals who benefit from farming? On the surface it could seem strange,
but when we consider that their objective is to eliminate farm animals it makes
a lot more sense. Since they want to eliminate farm animals completely, the
last thing they would want is for people to recognise that some farm animals
benefit from farming. If that became popular, some people who are considering
veg*nism might decide to contribute to decent lives for farm animals instead.
They know that if people felt good about contributing to decent lives for farm
animals, it could hinder their hopes of making the elimination of farm animals
appear to be the most "ethical" approach humans could take. Especially if
it becomes more popular for people to consider that some types of meat involve
fewer animal deaths than some types of veggies...
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-01-2005, 04:22 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:39:45 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

"Tim" wrote in message news ..
On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to a
well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all
sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of water.
Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me.


Livestock Suffer, Too
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html


Some do and some don't. One thing that's always true though, is that
people can't contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle if
they are vegan. Only conscientious consumers can do that.
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
Candy Assed Canadian John Kinal Still Spamming US Politics Over Canadian Government - God does tell that Satanic enemies of Life do exist, And Other Lies By John Kinal, Sociopathic Canadian Newsgroup Terrorist First-Post General Cooking 0 04-09-2016 12:10 AM
Leaky pie filling jars [email protected] Preserving 3 06-08-2007 08:18 PM
Vintage port - leaky bottle : ( [email protected] Wine 4 03-10-2006 02:35 AM
How To Fillet A Homo Sheldon General Cooking 6 30-04-2006 10:50 PM
Canadian foodie expression as per the Canadian Oxford alsandor General Cooking 0 09-12-2005 02:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 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