 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
On 4 Feb 2005 16:43:34 -0800, the Gonad lied:
>His beliefs just are what they are, but because he writes so >abominably, it wasn't all that clear until I painstakingly assembled >the handful of clear things he wrote and wove them into a coherent >whole. That's a lie. [...] >His usually slovenly writing tied a lot of them up in knots, and they >were getting frustrated with him. I saw what was happening, and >determined to make clear that the majority of opponents of "ethical >vegetarianism" didn't accept ****wit's silliness. Before I began posting about it I was afraid that in some way I was wrong, and was afraid someone would point out why, but I posted anyway. As time went on it became more and more clear that I'm not wrong, and no one can ever show that I am. The fact that you "ARAs" have had to resort to lying about what I believe shows that I'm right, you know it, and you hate it. I challenge any and all of you to show me how I'm wrong, without lying about what I believe or anything else! >He's hated me ever >since. Here's a little list of why I hate you Gonad: 1. You are inconsiderate. 2. By nature you enjoy making things worse for people. 3. It makes you feel good if you can make people who have never done anything to you feel bad. 4. You lie about other people. 5 You lie about yourself. 6. No one can trust you. and these are reasons simply to dislike you: 7. You act like a brat child. 8. You are ignorant about what you think you know about. 9. You are stupid. 10. You are too stupid to understand how ignorant you are. 11. You are extremely shallow. 12. You think you're a genius. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:43:28 GMT, wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:11:06 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote: >>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: >>>> >>>>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc >>>>>Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does >>>>>Message-ID: t> >>>>>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT >>>>> >>>>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for >>>>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality >>>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>>>When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you >>>>go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring >>>>to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically >>>>left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon >>>>himself believes non-existent farm animals have some >>>>form of reality instead. >>>> >>>> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for >>>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you." >>>> >>>>Why did you lie, Harrison? >>> >>> Since I don't believe that, >> >>We'll see about 'that'. Read on. >> >>>the lie was in posting a sentence saying that I do. >> >>The lie was in posting an incomplete quote to lead the >>reader into believing Jon, rather than you, reckon non- >>existent animals have some kind of reality. Well, Harrison? Why did you lie to your readers in this way? Producing half a quote to misrepresent your opponent's position is lying. Look at the half-quotes I produced yesterday; they all misrepresent his position, and yet YOU took them as true statements without even checking for them, even while most of them began in lower-case letters. "animals have a "right" to be born. It's true" Jonathan Ball 28 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5o7gy "I'm a closet "ARA"." Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9 "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination." Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER what the quality of that life is, is a good thing, Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9 "animals have rights." Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws And here's your effort; "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have some kind of reality" Jonathan Ball 30 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/6466v Producing only part of a quote to misrepresent your opponent's position is a lie, and for someone who incessantly whines about others misrepresenting your position, as you do, I would've thought you'd have known better than to try a stunt like that. >>>The Gonad wanted to >>>present the idea that they have some kind of reality, >> >>Rather, you edited out a vital part in his quote to give >>your readers that impression. You lied to them. > > No. You DID lie, Harrison, by editing his quote. He does NOT "present the idea that they have some kind of reality." Only your half-quotes do that. >>>and I just didn't include the lie at the end of his sentence. >> >>It wasn't a lie, Harrison, because > > You don't know. I DO know, Harrison, because your whole quotes clearly reveal that you DO believe non-existent animals have some kind of reality, exactly as Jon originally wrote before you edited his quote. Review the following discussion between ourselves on this issue where you plainly assert unborn animals have substance of living matter, but before doing that, read this (below). [Why does the fact that I made the statement implicate that I believe it? All conversational implicature is based on certain rules (or "maxims", as the philosopher Paul Grice called them) which govern cooperative communication. One of these rules is that you should state only what you believe (which Grice called a maxim of "Quality"). Thus, from the fact that I state something, you can conclude that I believe it. Of course, I might be lying, but conversational implicature is based upon the presumption that people are trying to cooperate, and thus are obeying the rules.] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ Now let's look at those quotes of yours you snipped away again. [start - me to you] *my edit >>>>>>What proof are you going to offer that will >>>>>>prove it (life)* is a benefit? >>>>> >>>>> The only reason you can benefit is because >>>>>you have life. >>>> >>>>Then that ruins your argument, because you >>>>have given the beneficiary of life a relative >>>>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged >>>>any further by giving it life. A benefit is >>>>something gained from a relative position, >>>>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative >>>>position of the beneficiary before life if not >>>>dead or unborn? >>> >>> Matter composing something else...sometimes >>>something living or sometimes not. >> >>You're joking! You've now given a non-existing >>beneficiary substance of matter as well as a >>relative position of being alive before birth. > > No position of being alive before birth, though >I consider it a possibility. It's not a possibility. Unborn animals do not have substance of matter, and they cannot be alive before coming into being. >You people who keep >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of >contempt for you. > Your quotes and this new revelation where unborn animals have substance of matter and possibly a life before coming into being are testament to your beliefs. No one is insisting anything you haven't already insisted yourself, so if you have a contempt for me and for those who produce your quotes here in refutation to your claim that they've lied about your beliefs, then it is only from some deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on your part. "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6 How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."? >>Jon and I do not 'stick together'. > > Bullshit. What you fail to realise is that when honest readers like myself spot a lie, they're obligated to reveal it. And another thing you fail to realise it that while obligating me in this way you put me in a position I'd rather not be in. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Feb 2005 16:43:34 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 4 Feb 2005 14:42:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote: >> >> >> >> [snip useful reposting of old exchange] >> >> >> >> >You people who keep >> >> >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of >> >> >contempt for you. >> >> > >> >> Your quotes and this new revelation where >> >> unborn animals have substance of matter >> >> and possibly a life before coming into being >> >> are testament to your beliefs. No one is >> >> insisting anything you haven't already insisted >> >> yourself, so if you have a contempt for me >> >> and for those who produce your quotes here >> >> in refutation to your claim that they've lied >> >> about your beliefs, then it is only from some >> >> deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on >> >> your part. >> >> >> >> "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6 >> >> >> >> How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly >> >> deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT >> >> imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have >> >> some kind of reality to you."? >> > >> >Realistically, he can't deny it. It won't stop him from trying, >> >though. >> >> What I find ironic is that while trying to imply YOU >> promote HIS proposition, he only does it in an effort >> to ridicule you. Self-loathing? > >If not exactly that - and I can't exclude it - it's at least an >acknowledgment that he knows his beliefs at least appear to be >ridiculous to the larger public. That's more or less what I intended to mean by "self-loathing". I doubt that he loathes himself, but it's pretty obvious he loathes his position. Why else would he insist others hold it when trying to ridicule them? >In fact, I think this awareness of >how his obvious beliefs appear to others is why he hates me so much, >because with good reason he blames me for the public perception. > >His beliefs just are what they are, but because he writes so >abominably, it wasn't all that clear until I painstakingly assembled >the handful of clear things he wrote and wove them into a coherent >whole. That's what he hates me for. > >Another thing for which I'm certain he hates me is the way I clarify >that his angle of attack on "vegans" is just BOUND to miss them by >miles. > >For some reason, he expects "vegans" to be moved by his >observation (of the obvious) that farm animals won't "get to experience >life" if "vegans" succeed in getting the world to go strictly >vegetarian. I think it's obvious to everyone that when he repeats his >observation, he intends it to be a criticism. But "vegans" clearly are >NOT going to feel criticized over it, because they not only don't think >that preventing farm animals from "getting to experience life" is a bad >thing, they positively think it's a GOOD thing. > >If you go all the way back to (about) July 1999, give or take a few >weeks, when ****wit first began posting, it is painfully evident that >****wit thought something along the lines of the following: > >- "vegans" claim to like animals; >- "veganism" causes fewer farm animals to live, > perhaps all the way to zero; >- if I point this out, "vegans" will feel bad (because > they like animals) and they'll give up "veganism" A sure signs of things to come. >His usually slovenly writing tied a lot of them up in knots, and they >were getting frustrated with him. I saw what was happening, and >determined to make clear that the majority of opponents of "ethical >vegetarianism" didn't accept ****wit's silliness. QEF >He's hated me ever since. You ought to be careful. These hillbilly types are skinny, but wiry. >****wit doesn't quite believe in "inner earth beings", but he's close >to being that nutty. Couldn't resist sliding that one in, eh? Nice try. [..] >> No, that's not your real reason for taking a special interest >> in Harrison's proposition. Harrison's logic of the larder >> lies behind the thinking of most meatarians and fur-wearers, > >It doesn't, and you know it. You're just 'avin' a larf, and we can all >see it. I'd be a fool not to make use of it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote:
> > The lives of potential future animals raised for food >are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will >exist if nothing prevents them If we're going to give potential future beings any consideration at all, why should we assume that 'their' current position can be bettered by bringing 'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming into being might be preferable to 'them', especially if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for food or medical research. > and possibly as Gonad >suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state. He's never suggested that. >Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops >their lives from happening is truly preventing animals >from having life they otherwise would have had. > Revised - 02/02/05 Until we know something of 'their' current state we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing 'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and slaughtered after a few months, or used as human models for medical research. [It is interesting to note that this fallacythe assumption that it is a kindness to bring a being into the worldis as old as the time of Lucretius, who deals with it, in another connection, in a passage of his great philosophical poem, De Rerum Natura (v. 176-180), which may be rendered thus: What loss were ours, if we had known not birth? Let living men to longer life aspire, While fond affection binds their hearts to earth: But whoso ne'er hath tasted life's desire, Unborn, impersonal, can feel no dearth. We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It is quite possible that fools may be repeating it two thousand years hence.] Logic of the Larder by Henry S. Salt http://tinyurl.com/59lku |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:11:21 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On 4 Feb 2005 16:43:34 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>Derek wrote: >>> On 4 Feb 2005 14:42:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>> >Derek wrote: >>> >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote: >>> >> >>> >> [snip useful reposting of old exchange] >>> >> >>> >> >You people who keep >>> >> >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of >>> >> >contempt for you. >>> >> > >>> >> Your quotes and this new revelation where >>> >> unborn animals have substance of matter >>> >> and possibly a life before coming into being >>> >> are testament to your beliefs. No one is >>> >> insisting anything you haven't already insisted >>> >> yourself, so if you have a contempt for me >>> >> and for those who produce your quotes here >>> >> in refutation to your claim that they've lied >>> >> about your beliefs, then it is only from some >>> >> deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on >>> >> your part. >>> >> >>> >> "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6 >>> >> >>> >> How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly >>> >> deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT >>> >> imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have >>> >> some kind of reality to you."? >>> > >>> >Realistically, he can't deny it. It won't stop him from trying, >>> >though. >>> >>> What I find ironic is that while trying to imply YOU >>> promote HIS proposition, he only does it in an effort >>> to ridicule you. Self-loathing? >> >>If not exactly that - and I can't exclude it - it's at least an >>acknowledgment that he knows his beliefs at least appear to be >>ridiculous to the larger public. > >That's more or less what I intended to mean by "self-loathing". >I doubt that he loathes himself, Not as much as a few other people. >but it's pretty obvious he loathes >his position. Well, think about it from my position: Years ago I realised that animals aren't simply being killed as you "ARAs" want everyone to think of it, but they only experience life because we raise them for food. I used to raise chickens, but didn't eat many of their eggs. There were hens that I wanted to keep, but didn't want to raise chicks from. What to do with the eggs? I did various things with them, but once in a while one of those hens who was running free would manage to hatch off. What to do with the chicks? Then I thought back to the eggs. After thinking it through I realised it was not out of consideration of the potential birds that I didn't let them experience life--and whatever afterlife there is if there is any--but it was because I didn't want to deal with it. I could let them live for 6 months and then kill them, instead of not letting them live at all. Why not? Because I didn't want to fool with it. I consider it to be fairly selfish that I didn't go to the effort. After going through the process it took me to realise all that--which took about as long as it did to explain it--even an "ARA" should be able to understand why I believe people who are unwilling to consider the animals' lives, to be selfish in an extremely pure way. So those of you who are OPPOSED to seeing anyone else consider them are really disgusting imo, and it's probably a very good thing you feel that I am. Here's a real good one to let you know how ignorant I was when I began posting he I expected that you people who pretend to care about animals would already have gotten such basics as I went through out of the way, and would be discussing various ways people do and can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals. Like by cage free eggs, etc. So of course I'm in a very strange position as far as how I should feel about everyone else. I don't feel that I'm any kind of genius, but I sure do feel that anyone who pretends to care about animals but doesn't even pretend to care about their lives, has GOT to be stupid as shit. Though I've never met anyone that stupid in person, apparently "everyone" in these ngs is that stupid. Hard to believe. So then, what am I supposed to think? Maybe I'm the dumbass? Maybe. But it has only been people in these ngs that have disagreed. One guy I worked with did to begin with, but after considering it he finally realised their lives are significant. Everyone I discuss it with realises the significance, and laughs at the stupidity of those who can't. But what about your arguments? Maybe they show me to be wrong? HA!!! There are NO arguments at all. For a couple of years I was afraid something might be presented, but not even close. The fact that the most desperate and dedicated opponent I've got--of course it's Gonad--has absolutely nothing but lies about my beliefs means a very great deal. It means that he has absolutely no arguments against what I truly believe. It means that he is afraid to even acknowledge what I truly believe. And most importantly, it means that he's afraid if other people began to believe as I do, it would destroy your chances of eliminating domestic animals. People would realise you only want to do it out of your own pure selfishness and not out of consideration of the animals. They might go for something else instead. What about others? Dutch has three tricks: 1. he says we can't consider them 2. an imaginarly talking pig in a fantasy written by an "ARA" says we can't consider them. 3. he says we should think of raising animals for food and child sex slavery in the same way, but I won't be tricked into it. Who else? Brandumb is Gonad to me. Swamp didn't agree, but every damn one of his objections was an "AR" belief that I didn't agree with. So here I am. "Everyone" is against me, but not a damn one of you has a single good oposition. >Why else would he insist others hold it when trying >to ridicule them? > >>In fact, I think this awareness of >>how his obvious beliefs appear to others is why he hates me so much, >>because with good reason he blames me for the public perception. >> >>His beliefs just are what they are, but because he writes so >>abominably, it wasn't all that clear until I painstakingly assembled >>the handful of clear things he wrote and wove them into a coherent >>whole. That's what he hates me for. >> >>Another thing for which I'm certain he hates me is the way I clarify >>that his angle of attack on "vegans" is just BOUND to miss them by >>miles. >> >>For some reason, he expects "vegans" to be moved by his >>observation (of the obvious) that farm animals won't "get to experience >>life" if "vegans" succeed in getting the world to go strictly >>vegetarian. I think it's obvious to everyone that when he repeats his >>observation, he intends it to be a criticism. But "vegans" clearly are >>NOT going to feel criticized over it, because they not only don't think >>that preventing farm animals from "getting to experience life" is a bad >>thing, they positively think it's a GOOD thing. >> >>If you go all the way back to (about) July 1999, give or take a few >>weeks, when ****wit first began posting, it is painfully evident that >>****wit thought something along the lines of the following: >> >>- "vegans" claim to like animals; >>- "veganism" causes fewer farm animals to live, >> perhaps all the way to zero; >>- if I point this out, "vegans" will feel bad (because >> they like animals) and they'll give up "veganism" > >A sure signs of things to come. > >>His usually slovenly writing tied a lot of them up in knots, and they >>were getting frustrated with him. I saw what was happening, and >>determined to make clear that the majority of opponents of "ethical >>vegetarianism" didn't accept ****wit's silliness. > >QEF > >>He's hated me ever since. > >You ought to be careful. These hillbilly types are skinny, >but wiry. > >>****wit doesn't quite believe in "inner earth beings", but he's close >>to being that nutty. > >Couldn't resist sliding that one in, eh? Nice try. A perfect example. The Gonad accused her of believing in that stupid shit. I suspected the Gonad was lying--partly because she was saying that he was--so I asked her. For the second time. Both times she admitted that she believed the stupid shit, and the second time admitted that the Gonad was not lying. Unless the Gonad posted as her instead, but since she didn't say anything about that it was probably really her. It surprises me that in five and a half ****ing years not a single person has shown me the courtesy that I did to pearl, and to a couple of others I suspected the Gonad was lying about. >[..] >>> No, that's not your real reason for taking a special interest >>> in Harrison's proposition. Harrison's logic of the larder >>> lies behind the thinking of most meatarians and fur-wearers, >> >>It doesn't, and you know it. You're just 'avin' a larf, and we can all >>see it. > >I'd be a fool not to make use of it. Some people do care about contributing to decent lives for farm animals, otherwise there would not be cage free eggs available where it's half their price to buy battery eggs. You're just hoping that more such things don't become available, and most especially that they NEVER become popular. You selfish "ARAs" would be out of luck then, and you know it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: >> >> The lives of potential future animals raised for food >>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will >>exist if nothing prevents them > >If we're going to give potential future beings any >consideration at all, why should we assume that >'their' current position can be bettered by bringing >'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming >into being might be preferable to 'them', especially >if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for >food or medical research. > >> and possibly as Gonad >>suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state. > >He's never suggested that. Eventually you will most likely lie again, and say you never suggested it either. >>Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops >>their lives from happening is truly preventing animals >>from having life they otherwise would have had. >> Revised - 02/02/05 > >Until we know something of 'their' current state >we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing >'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and >slaughtered after a few months, or used as human >models for medical research. We might not be. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:37:43 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:43:28 GMT, wrote: >>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:11:06 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote: >>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>>>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc >>>>>>Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does >>>>>>Message-ID: t> >>>>>>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT >>>>>> >>>>>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for >>>>>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality >>>>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>>>>When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you >>>>>go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring >>>>>to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically >>>>>left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon >>>>>himself believes non-existent farm animals have some >>>>>form of reality instead. >>>>> >>>>> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for >>>>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you." >>>>> >>>>>Why did you lie, Harrison? >>>> >>>> Since I don't believe that, >>> >>>We'll see about 'that'. Read on. >>> >>>>the lie was in posting a sentence saying that I do. >>> >>>The lie was in posting an incomplete quote to lead the >>>reader into believing Jon, rather than you, reckon non- >>>existent animals have some kind of reality. > >Well, Harrison? Why did you lie to your readers in >this way? Producing half a quote to misrepresent >your opponent's position is lying. > >Look at the half-quotes I produced yesterday; they >all misrepresent his position, and yet YOU took them >as true statements without even checking for them, LOL! It's obvious what you were doing. If I hadn't gone along with it, I wouldn't have the proof that you "ARAs" work together, but now I have the proof that you do. >even while most of them began in lower-case letters. > > "animals have a "right" to be born. It's true" > Jonathan Ball 28 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5o7gy > > "I'm a closet "ARA"." > Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9 > > "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal > "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to > "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination." > Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm > > "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER > what the quality of that life is, is a good thing, > Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9 > > "animals have rights." > Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws > >And here's your effort; > > "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for > some bizarre reason have some kind of reality" > Jonathan Ball 30 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/6466v > >Producing only part of a quote to misrepresent your >opponent's position is a lie, That's what you Gonads have been doing to me for years. What I did was to remove a lie, and you hate it because doing that makes your hero look bad. >and for someone who >incessantly whines about others misrepresenting >your position, as you do, I would've thought you'd >have known better than to try a stunt like that. > >>>>The Gonad wanted to >>>>present the idea that they have some kind of reality, >>> >>>Rather, you edited out a vital part in his quote to give >>>your readers that impression. You lied to them. >> >> No. > >You DID lie, Harrison, by editing his quote. He does >NOT "present the idea that they have some kind of >reality." Obviously he did, since he did it. >Only your half-quotes do that. > >>>>and I just didn't include the lie at the end of his sentence. >>> >>>It wasn't a lie, Harrison, because >> >> You don't know. > >I DO know, That's a lie. >Harrison, because your whole quotes >clearly reveal that you DO believe non-existent animals >have some kind of reality, No they don't. You wouldn't say they did if you were an honest reader who could spot a lie, and felt obligated to reveal it. Instead you and the Gonad work together, telling the same lies. >exactly as Jon originally wrote >before you edited his quote. > >Review the following discussion between ourselves >on this issue where you plainly assert unborn animals >have substance of living matter, but before doing that, >read this (below). > > [Why does the fact that I made the statement implicate > that I believe it? All conversational implicature is based > on certain rules (or "maxims", as the philosopher Paul > Grice called them) which govern cooperative > communication. One of these rules is that you should state > only what you believe (which Grice called a maxim of > "Quality"). Thus, from the fact that I state something, you > can conclude that I believe it. Of course, I might be lying, > but conversational implicature is based upon the presumption > that people are trying to cooperate, and thus are obeying the > rules.] > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ > >Now let's look at those quotes of yours you snipped away >again. > > [start - me to you] *my edit > >>>>>>What proof are you going to offer that will > >>>>>>prove it (life)* is a benefit? > >>>>> > >>>>> The only reason you can benefit is because > >>>>>you have life. > >>>> > >>>>Then that ruins your argument, because you > >>>>have given the beneficiary of life a relative > >>>>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged > >>>>any further by giving it life. A benefit is > >>>>something gained from a relative position, > >>>>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative > >>>>position of the beneficiary before life if not > >>>>dead or unborn? > >>> > >>> Matter composing something else...sometimes > >>>something living or sometimes not. > >> > >>You're joking! You've now given a non-existing > >>beneficiary substance of matter as well as a > >>relative position of being alive before birth. > > > > No position of being alive before birth, though > >I consider it a possibility. > > It's not a possibility. Unborn animals do not > have substance of matter, and they cannot > be alive before coming into being. You have absolutely no way of knowing that. I believe it's a possibility. The Gonad believes it's a possibility. There are billions of people who believe it to be true. You have no clue whether it's true or not. > >You people who keep > >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of > >contempt for you. > > > Your quotes and this new revelation where > unborn animals have substance of matter > and possibly a life before coming into being > are testament to your beliefs. No. That is a retarded interpretation. All things are composed of matter. Some of that matter composes living things. Some of it has been a component of many living things over the years. If the animals have any kind of life before life on Earth, it is a seperate thing from the matter which composes their bodies on Earth, imo. > No one is > insisting anything you haven't already insisted > yourself, so if you have a contempt for me > and for those who produce your quotes here > in refutation to your claim that they've lied > about your beliefs, then it is only from some > deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on > your part. LOL! You show that you're even more contemptible because you're not capable of understanding. But then, what the hell can we expect from someone as selfish as yourself? You don't even show the basic courtesy of trying to understand--much less acknowledge--what I really believe. > "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6 > >How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly >deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT >imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have >some kind of reality to you."? > >>>Jon and I do not 'stick together'. >> >> Bullshit. > >What you fail to realise is that when honest readers >like myself spot a lie, they're obligated to reveal it. That's a ****ing lie. >And another thing you fail to realise it that while >obligating me in this way you put me in a position >I'd rather not be in. Then accept the God damn truth and expose the Gonad's lies instead of lying along with him. You lie because that's what you want to do. If pearl had said she didn't believe in her shit, I'd have pointed out the Gonad's lies a number of times by now even though she is an "ARA". If you were half the person you brag about being you'd have been doing that to the Gonad for years now, but instead you never will. No one forces you to lie like the Gonad. You do it only because you want to. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison, STUPID cracker, wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:37:43 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:43:28 GMT, wrote: > >>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:11:06 +0000, Derek > wrote: > >>>On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote: > >>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: > >>>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>From: Rudy Canoza > > >>>>>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets= ..dogs.misc > >>>>>>Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does > >>>>>>Message-ID: t> > >>>>>>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for > >>>>>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality > >>>>>>=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > >>>>>When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you > >>>>>go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring > >>>>>to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically > >>>>>left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon > >>>>>himself believes non-existent farm animals have some > >>>>>form of reality instead. > >>>>> > >>>>> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for > >>>>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you." > >>>>> > >>>>>Why did you lie, Harrison? > >>>> > >>>> Since I don't believe that, > >>> > >>>We'll see about 'that'. Read on. > >>> > >>>>the lie was in posting a sentence saying that I do. > >>> > >>>The lie was in posting an incomplete quote to lead the > >>>reader into believing Jon, rather than you, reckon non- > >>>existent animals have some kind of reality. > > > >Well, Harrison? Why did you lie to your readers in > >this way? Producing half a quote to misrepresent > >your opponent's position is lying. > > > >Look at the half-quotes I produced yesterday; they > >all misrepresent his position, and yet YOU took them > >as true statements without even checking for them, > > It's obvious what you were doing. If I hadn't > gone along with it SUUUUUURE, ****wit, you clumsy ****tard: >> Excellent. The Gonad himself explains that >> he's an "ARA", AND that he insists the >> animals have a right to be born. That wasn't "going along with it", ****wit. That was you gobbling the bait. STUPID, ****wit - you stupid, STUPID, predictable hillbilly. > >even while most of them began in lower-case letters. > > > > "animals have a "right" to be born. It's true" > > Jonathan Ball 28 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5o7gy > > > > "I'm a closet "ARA"." > > Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9 > > > > "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal > > "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to > > "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination." > > Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm > > > > "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER > > what the quality of that life is, is a good thing, > > Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9 > > > > "animals have rights." > > Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws > > > >And here's your effort; > > > > "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for > > some bizarre reason have some kind of reality" > > Jonathan Ball 30 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/6466v > > > >Producing only part of a quote to misrepresent your > >opponent's position is a lie, > > That's what you have been doing to me > for years. NO ONE has done that to you, ****wit. YOUR quotes have been reproduced in full. And why wouldn't they be? They ALL show you to believe EXACTLY what I've said you believe. I faithfully reproduce your quotes in their entirety, ****wit, because the context is important, AND because I am honest. You are a dishonest, quote-mangling little piece of redneck spooge. > > >and for someone who > >incessantly whines about others misrepresenting > >your position, as you do, I would've thought you'd > >have known better than to try a stunt like that. > > > >>>>The Gonad wanted to > >>>>present the idea that they have some kind of reality, > >>> > >>>Rather, you edited out a vital part in his quote to give > >>>your readers that impression. You lied to them. > >> > >> No. > > > >You DID lie, Harrison, by editing his quote. He does > >NOT "present the idea that they have some kind of > >reality." > > Obviously he did, since he did it. Obviously I don't, since YOU did it, ****wit. WE all saw you. > > >Only your half-quotes do that. > > > >>>>and I just didn't include the lie at the end of his sentence. > >>> > >>>It wasn't a lie, Harrison, because > >> > >> You don't know. > > > >I DO know, > > That's a lie. That's not a lie, ****wit. > > >Harrison, because your whole quotes > >clearly reveal that you DO believe non-existent animals > >have some kind of reality, > > No they don't Yes, they do: The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had. ****wit - 12/09/1999 Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. ****wit - 08/01/2000 What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? ****wit - 10/12/2001 What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all. ****wit - 10/19/1999 > > >exactly as Jon originally wrote > >before you edited his quote. > > > >Review the following discussion between ourselves > >on this issue where you plainly assert unborn animals > >have substance of living matter, but before doing that, > >read this (below). > > > > [Why does the fact that I made the statement implicate > > that I believe it? All conversational implicature is based > > on certain rules (or "maxims", as the philosopher Paul > > Grice called them) which govern cooperative > > communication. One of these rules is that you should state > > only what you believe (which Grice called a maxim of > > "Quality"). Thus, from the fact that I state something, you > > can conclude that I believe it. Of course, I might be lying, > > but conversational implicature is based upon the presumption > > that people are trying to cooperate, and thus are obeying the > > rules.] > > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ > > > >Now let's look at those quotes of yours you snipped away > >again. > > > > [start - me to you] *my edit > > >>>>>>What proof are you going to offer that will > > >>>>>>prove it (life)* is a benefit? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The only reason you can benefit is because > > >>>>>you have life. > > >>>> > > >>>>Then that ruins your argument, because you > > >>>>have given the beneficiary of life a relative > > >>>>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged > > >>>>any further by giving it life. A benefit is > > >>>>something gained from a relative position, > > >>>>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative > > >>>>position of the beneficiary before life if not > > >>>>dead or unborn? > > >>> > > >>> Matter composing something else...sometimes > > >>>something living or sometimes not. > > >> > > >>You're joking! You've now given a non-existing > > >>beneficiary substance of matter as well as a > > >>relative position of being alive before birth. > > > > > > No position of being alive before birth, though > > >I consider it a possibility. > > > > It's not a possibility. Unborn animals do not > > have substance of matter, and they cannot > > be alive before coming into being. > > You have absolutely no way of knowing that. We have ZERO reason to think they're alive before they're alive, ****wit. You, however, think it anyway: The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had. ****wit - 12/09/1999 Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. ****wit - 08/01/2000 What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? ****wit - 10/12/2001 What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all. ****wit - 10/19/1999 > > > >You people who keep > > >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of > > >contempt for you. > > > > > Your quotes and this new revelation where > > unborn animals have substance of matter > > and possibly a life before coming into being > > are testament to your beliefs. > > No. Yes. > That is a retarded interpretation. It's YOUR interpretation, ****wit, so yes, it is retarded. > > > No one is > > insisting anything you haven't already insisted > > yourself, so if you have a contempt for me > > and for those who produce your quotes here > > in refutation to your claim that they've lied > > about your beliefs, then it is only from some > > deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on > > your part. > > You show that you're even more contemptible > because you're not capable of understanding. Oh, we understand it all right, ****wit. Believe me, we understand it. > > > "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6 > > > >How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly > >deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT > >imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have > >some kind of reality to you."? > > > >>>Jon and I do not 'stick together'. > >> > >> Bullshit. > > > >What you fail to realise is that when honest readers > >like myself spot a lie, they're obligated to reveal it. > > That's a ****ing lie. No, it's the truth. He set you up, ****wit, and you eagerly ran right in. > > >And another thing you fail to realise it that while > >obligating me in this way you put me in a position > >I'd rather not be in. > > Then accept the God damn truth and expose > the Rudy's lies instead of lying along with him. I haven't lied, ****wit. I have faithfully reproduced your quotes, and they lead EXACTLY where I say they lead: The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had. ****wit - 12/09/1999 Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. ****wit - 08/01/2000 What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? ****wit - 10/12/2001 What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all. ****wit - 10/19/1999 You believe unconceived, non-existent farm animals are an experiential SOMETHING, ****wit, and that they can suffer loss, deprivation, and unfairness. You believe they have "enemies". You're ****ED, ****wit. Stupid cracker. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
· The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state. Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops their lives from happening is truly preventing animals from having life they otherwise would have had. Revised - 02/02/05 __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does Message-ID: t> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have some kind of reality ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT Message-ID: . net> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived, pre-born state, or they do not. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT The rational person realizes: 1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in a 'pre-born' state. 2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ · ===================================== · Though we have no reason to believe there would be any loss suffered by potential future animals if "they" are never born, billions more farm animals will be born if the Gonad's suggestion to do away with them is not accepted, as I pointed out on 08/01/00. Revised - 02/04/05 __________________________________________________ _______ From: (Jonathan Ball) Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700 People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Message-ID: > From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian Subject: Don't forget, meat is a plant based food. 10 Jun 2002 04:23:54 GMT "Vegans" don't want any livestock animals to live. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,uk.politics.animals Subject: Animal activist admits to setting fire Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:09:07 GMT "Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live in bad conditions. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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 deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Message-ID: > From: Jonathan Ball > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n Subject: Karen Winter's abandonment of her son, and why it matters Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:15:39 GMT killing the animals needlessly and merely for human convenience is the worst violation of their rights. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ · |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison, useless cracker, wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, ****wit David Harrison, useless cracker, wrote: >> >>> The lives of potential future animals raised for food >>>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will >>>exist if nothing prevents them >> >>If we're going to give potential future beings any >>consideration at all, why should we assume that >>'their' current position can be bettered by bringing >>'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming >>into being might be preferable to 'them', especially >>if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for >>food or medical research. >> >> >>>and possibly as Gonad >>>suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state. >> >>He's never suggested that. > > > Eventually you will most likely lie again, and say > you never suggested it either. > > >>>Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops >>>their lives from happening is truly preventing animals >> >>>from having life they otherwise would have had. >> >>> Revised - 02/02/05 >> >>Until we know something of 'their' current state >>we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing >>'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and >>slaughtered after a few months, or used as human >>models for medical research. > > > We might not be. You have NO reason to believe that causing "them" to be conceived and born and "get to experience life" is an improvement, ****wit. Let's review, shall we? You're a very shitty pupil, so some review might be beneficial (because you already exist, if you can call your life an existence, and you have a welfare that might be improvable). Either the animals "pre-exist" *with an experiential welfare* before being conceived and born, or they do not. If they do, you have NO knowledge of their state of "pre-existence", so you have NO WAY of knowing if causing them to be conceived and born into our world is an improvement or not. If they do NOT "pre-exist", then causing them to be conceived and born and come into existence is DEFINITELY NOT an improvement, because you can only "improve" something that exists. You have no basis for your bizarre belief that you are doing farm animals some kind of good deed by causing them to exist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:50:37 GMT, wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:11:21 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On 4 Feb 2005 16:43:34 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>> On 4 Feb 2005 14:42:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote: >>>> >Derek wrote: >>>> >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> [snip useful reposting of old exchange] >>>> >> >>>> >> >You people who keep >>>> >> >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of >>>> >> >contempt for you. >>>> >> > >>>> >> Your quotes and this new revelation where >>>> >> unborn animals have substance of matter >>>> >> and possibly a life before coming into being >>>> >> are testament to your beliefs. No one is >>>> >> insisting anything you haven't already insisted >>>> >> yourself, so if you have a contempt for me >>>> >> and for those who produce your quotes here >>>> >> in refutation to your claim that they've lied >>>> >> about your beliefs, then it is only from some >>>> >> deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on >>>> >> your part. >>>> >> >>>> >> "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6 >>>> >> >>>> >> How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly >>>> >> deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT >>>> >> imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have >>>> >> some kind of reality to you."? >>>> > >>>> >Realistically, he can't deny it. It won't stop him from trying, >>>> >though. >>>> >>>> What I find ironic is that while trying to imply YOU >>>> promote HIS proposition, he only does it in an effort >>>> to ridicule you. Self-loathing? >>> >>>If not exactly that - and I can't exclude it - it's at least an >>>acknowledgment that he knows his beliefs at least appear to be >>>ridiculous to the larger public. >> >>That's more or less what I intended to mean by "self-loathing". >>I doubt that he loathes himself, > > Not as much as a few other people. Then, you DO loathe yourself, but not as much as a few other people do? >>but it's pretty obvious he loathes his position. > > Well, think about it from my position: You don't have a position, as such. Your entire contribution is limited to asserting non-existent farm animals actually exist in a pre-conceived state and are being wronged by the vegan who promotes an end to livestock production. That's not a position. You're merely making an assertion without providing any support for it. To gain a position to argue from you need to; 1) prove non-existent beings exist 2) prove that we can make changes to 'their' current position. 3) prove that 'their' current position needs to be improved from what it is to what you assert it should be: alive. Until you achieve those three conditions you don't have a position to argue from. > Years ago I realised that animals aren't simply being killed as >you "ARAs" want everyone to think of it, but they only experience >life because we raise them for food. Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get animals to experience life by then eating them, that we ought to follow that principle to it's ultimate end and breed rats to eat instead of huge bovines? Surely, if your goal is to get ever more animals to experience life by eating them, we should breed thousands of rats instead of just three larger animals. In fact, if we're to follow your rule to its logical end, we must breed the smallest of animals possible to the detriment of our own species. >I used to raise chickens, but >didn't eat many of their eggs. There were hens that I wanted to >keep, but didn't want to raise chicks from. Then you set a different standard for yourself than you do for the rest of humanity. What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? David Harrison - 10/12/2001 Are you aware that the nearest example you'll ever find of an immoral act is when a person fails to follow a maxim by which he can at the same time will that same maxim to become a universal law? >What to do with the >eggs? I did various things with them, but once in a while one of >those hens who was running free would manage to hatch off. What >to do with the chicks? Then I thought back to the eggs. After thinking >it through I realised it was not out of consideration of the potential >birds that I didn't let them experience life--and whatever afterlife there >is if there is any--but it was because I didn't want to deal with it. Deal with what - "that in not breeding animals, the enormity of our sins of omission would be more than the human conscience could endure, for the number of the unborn is limitless"? Is THAT "it", Dave? Have you sinned? >I could let them live for 6 months and then kill them, instead of not >letting them live at all. Why not? Because killing it brings an end to what you originally set out to do: allow an animal to experience life. You can't insist we ought to allow an animal to experience life and then go on to insist we ought not to allow an animal to experience life, at least, not without badly contradicting yourself. >Because I didn't want to fool with it. Fool with what, Dave; "it" again? Your sins of omission are soaring. >I consider it to be fairly selfish that I didn't go to the effort. I've no doubt that that act of selfishness has earned you your place in Hell, Dave. > After going through the process it took me to realise all that--which >took about as long as it did to explain it--even an "ARA" should be >able to understand why I believe people who are unwilling to >consider the animals' lives, to be selfish in an extremely pure way. We do consider their lives. What we don't consider is your unsupported assertion that currently living livestock existed in any way, shape or form before conception. That would be a ridiculous thing to consider. >So those of you who are OPPOSED to seeing anyone else consider >them are really disgusting imo, By "them", are you referring to currently living beasts or non-existent nothings? [..] > But what about your arguments? Maybe they show me to be >wrong? HA!!! There are NO arguments at all. For a couple of years >I was afraid something might be presented, but not even close. But you don't really have an argument or position to defeat, because, as I earlier wrote; You're merely making an assertion without providing any support for it. To gain a position to argue from you need to; 1) prove non-existent beings exist 2) prove that we can make changes to 'their' current position. 3) prove that 'their' current position needs to be improved from what it is to what you assert it should be: alive. Until you achieve those three conditions you don't have a position to argue from. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:51:53 GMT, wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: >>> >>> The lives of potential future animals raised for food >>>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will >>>exist if nothing prevents them >> >>If we're going to give potential future beings any >>consideration at all, why should we assume that >>'their' current position can be bettered by bringing >>'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming >>into being might be preferable to 'them', especially >>if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for >>food or medical research. I think you ought to answer this question, because without an adequate explanation you don't have a position to argue from. >>>Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops >>>their lives from happening is truly preventing animals >>>from having life they otherwise would have had. >>> Revised - 02/02/05 >> >>Until we know something of 'their' current state >>we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing >>'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and >>slaughtered after a few months, or used as human >>models for medical research. > > We might not be. Then make your case, Harrison. 1) prove non-existent beings exist 2) prove that we can make changes to 'their' current position. 3) prove that 'their' current position needs to be improved from what it is to what you assert it should be: alive. Until those conditions are met you don't have a valid position to argue from. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:48:16 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:50:37 GMT, wrote: >> Years ago I realised that animals aren't simply being killed as >>you "ARAs" want everyone to think of it, but they only experience >>life because we raise them for food. > >Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get >animals to experience life by then eating them, That's not our goal. >that >we ought to follow that principle to it's ultimate end >and breed rats to eat instead of huge bovines? Surely, >if your goal is to get ever more animals to experience >life by eating them, we should breed thousands of rats >instead of just three larger animals. In fact, if we're >to follow your rule to its logical end, we must breed >the smallest of animals possible to the detriment of >our own species. > >>I used to raise chickens, but >>didn't eat many of their eggs. There were hens that I wanted to >>keep, but didn't want to raise chicks from. > >Then you set a different standard for yourself than >you do for the rest of humanity. > > What gives you the right to want to deprive > them [unborn animals] of having what life > they could have? > David Harrison - 10/12/2001 I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives. Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal lives than you have? >Are you aware that the nearest example you'll ever >find of an immoral act is when a person fails to follow >a maxim by which he can at the same time will that >same maxim to become a universal law? How does that relate to you contributing to the deaths of animals then? >>What to do with the >>eggs? I did various things with them, but once in a while one of >>those hens who was running free would manage to hatch off. What >>to do with the chicks? Then I thought back to the eggs. After thinking >>it through I realised it was not out of consideration of the potential >>birds that I didn't let them experience life--and whatever afterlife there >>is if there is any--but it was because I didn't want to deal with it. > >Deal with what Feeding them. Raising them. Killing them.... >- "that in not breeding animals, the >enormity of our sins of omission would be more than >the human conscience could endure, for the number >of the unborn is limitless"? Is THAT "it", Dave? Of course that's not it. How impressively stupid of you to "think" THAT could possibly be "it". >Have >you sinned? > >>I could let them live for 6 months and then kill them, instead of not >>letting them live at all. Why not? > >Because killing it brings an end to what you originally set >out to do: allow an animal to experience life. What I would have originally set out to do would have been to give them 6 months instead of nothing. >You can't >insist we ought to allow an animal to experience life and >then go on to insist we ought not to allow an animal to >experience life, at least, not without badly contradicting >yourself. > >>Because I didn't want to fool with it. > >Fool with what, Raising them. Feeding them. Killing them... >Dave; "it" again? Your sins of omission >are soaring. You are so clueless it's absolutely pitiful. And here I am again in the position of wondering: could this person really be as stupid as he acts? >>I consider it to be fairly selfish that I didn't go to the effort. > >I've no doubt that that act of selfishness has earned you >your place in Hell, Dave. If so, your selfish ass will be there too. >> After going through the process it took me to realise all that--which >>took about as long as it did to explain it--even an "ARA" should be >>able to understand why I believe people who are unwilling to >>consider the animals' lives, to be selfish in an extremely pure way. > >We do consider their lives. What we don't consider is >your unsupported assertion that currently living livestock >existed in any way, shape or form before conception. You're a liar to say I believe that. I do consider it to be a possibility, but you are an outright liar none the less. >That would be a ridiculous thing to consider. There again you lie, because you have absolutely no clue whether it is or not. If you feel that you do have a clue, explain it and I'll give you full credit for the explanation over in some of the Hindu groups. Please give your explanation now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:00:34 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:51:53 GMT, wrote: >>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: >>>> >>>> The lives of potential future animals raised for food >>>>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will >>>>exist if nothing prevents them >>> >>>If we're going to give potential future beings any >>>consideration at all, why should we assume that >>>'their' current position can be bettered by bringing >>>'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming >>>into being might be preferable to 'them', especially >>>if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for >>>food or medical research. > >I think you ought to answer this question, "why should we assume that 'their' current position can be bettered by bringing 'them' into being?" One reason is that since 'they' probably do not exist, a decent life would be a good thing, imo. Your turn: why should we assume that 'their' current position is better than not bringing 'them' into being? >because >without an adequate explanation you don't have a >position to argue from. The same goes even more for you, since you "ARAs" are the ones who want to change things, YOU need to explain why. >>>>Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops >>>>their lives from happening is truly preventing animals >>>>from having life they otherwise would have had. >>>> Revised - 02/02/05 >>> >>>Until we know something of 'their' current state >>>we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing >>>'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and >>>slaughtered after a few months, or used as human >>>models for medical research. >> >> We might not be. > >Then make your case, Harrison. >1) prove non-existent beings exist They don't. >2) prove that we can make changes to 'their' current > position. We can't. >3) prove that 'their' current position needs to be > improved from what it is to what you assert it > should be: alive. "They" have no current position. >Until those conditions are met you don't have a valid >position to argue from. That's a lie. Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some do not. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:48:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: > >Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get > >animals to experience life by then eating them, > > That's not our goal. You propose that it ought to be a consideration, which is the same thing. [..] > I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives. > Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal > lives than you have? A life cannot be prevented, that's a logical impossibility. When we use that phrase it's rhetorical. Morality cannot be not based on rhetoric. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison, stupidest cracker in Georgia, wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:48:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >>I could let them live for 6 months and then kill them, instead of not > >>letting them live at all. Why not? > > > >Because killing it brings an end to what you originally set > >out to do: allow an animal to experience life. > > What I would have originally set out to do would have > been to give them 6 months instead of nothing. You CANNOT give "them" nothing, ****wit. If you are deciding whether to breed 10 chickens or 100, and you decide on 10, then you have NOT "given no life" to 90 chickens. You STUPID ****ing cracker. You can't give something, anything, nothing, everything, or any other ****ing "thing" to a non-existent entity. If "it" doesn't exist, ****wit, you are not "withholding" anything from "it" if you decide not to take steps to cause "it" to exist. This is your fundamental error, ****wit. It's what leads you falsely and STUPIDLY to accuse others of "selfishness" if they choose not to consume animal products. You can only reasonably call someone "selfish" if he is not doing something beneficial for some other ENTITY that he might have done. But that entity MUST exist in order for someone to withhold some favor or kindness from it. Why is this so hard for you, ****wit? WHY are you attributing some kind of moral standing to *merely* potential, but non-existent, entities? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:00:34 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:51:53 GMT, ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote: > >>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek > wrote: > >>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The lives of potential future animals raised for food > >>>>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will > >>>>exist if nothing prevents them > >>> > >>>If we're going to give potential future beings any > >>>consideration at all, why should we assume that > >>>'their' current position can be bettered by bringing > >>>'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming > >>>into being might be preferable to 'them', especially > >>>if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for > >>>food or medical research. > > > >I think you ought to answer this question, > > "why should we assume that > 'their' current position can be bettered by bringing > 'them' into being?" > > One reason is that since 'they' probably do not > exist, a decent life would be a good thing, imo. It would not be an "improvement" to "them": there is no "them" with a welfare to improve. Life per se is not a benefit. > >> We might not be. > > > >Then make your case, Harrison. > >1) prove non-existent beings exist > > They don't. You don't believe that, ****wit. You believe the non-existent farm animals are SOMETHING, and anything that is SOMETHING exists: The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had. ****wit - 12/09/1999 > > >2) prove that we can make changes to 'their' current > > position. > > We can't. You don't believe that, ****wit: Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. ****wit - 08/01/2000 You feel we can make "their" lives happen, and that if we fail to do it, "they" suffer a loss. You're just stuck, ****wit. > > >3) prove that 'their' current position needs to be > > improved from what it is to what you assert it > > should be: alive. > > "They" have no current position. You don't believe that, ****wit: What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? ****wit - 10/12/2001 People who encourage vegetarianism are the worst enemy that the animals we raise for food have IMO. ****wit - 09/13/1999 You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive future farm animals [of] living, ****wit - 01/08/2002 YOU, ****wit, feel "they" are in a position where they can be "deprived" and have "enemies". You're just stuck, ****wit. > > >Until those conditions are met you don't have a valid > >position to argue from. > > That's a lie. It's not a lie. You don't have a valid position. > > Some farm animals benefit from farming. NO animals "benefit" from farming, ****wit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:55:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:48:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: > >> >Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get >> >animals to experience life by then eating them, >> >> That's not our goal. > >You propose that it ought to be a consideration, It should be of course. >which is the same thing. That's a lie. If it were true, the same would be true of CDs, which according to your retardation would mean that "our goal" is to raise animals for food provide them with life cause the deaths of wildlife in crop fields cause the deaths of livestock plow fields plant fields treat fields with chemicals irrigate fields harvest crops process crops and whatever else is a consideration. >[..] > >> I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives. >> Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal >> lives than you have? > >A life cannot be prevented, that's a logical impossibility. The lives of billions more livestock will occur if you "ARAs" are not successful in preventing them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:55:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get > >> >animals to experience life by then eating them, > >> > >> That's not our goal. > > > >You propose that it ought to be a consideration, > > It should be of course. Of course it should not be. It is a consideration that has no impact on the moral/ethical process. If one believes that it's wrong to use animals for food then the fact that using them implies that "they get to experience life" changes nothing. If one believes that it's right and proper to use animals for food then considering that "they get to experience life" is unecessary and extraneous. > >which is the same thing. > > That's a lie. If it were true, the same would be true of CDs, > which according to your retardation would mean that "our > goal" is to raise animals for food provide them with life cause > the deaths of wildlife in crop fields cause the deaths of livestock > plow fields plant fields treat fields with chemicals irrigate fields > harvest crops process crops and whatever else is a consideration. We don't raise crops so that animals can predate them and "get to experience life" either. The whole notion is nonsense. > > >[..] > > > >> I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives. > >> Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal > >> lives than you have? > > > >A life cannot be prevented, that's a logical impossibility. > > The lives of billions more livestock will occur if you "ARAs" > are not successful in preventing them. So what? No animal is harmed or loses anything in that event. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:44:08 GMT, wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:48:16 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:50:37 GMT, wrote: > >>> Years ago I realised that animals aren't simply being killed as >>>you "ARAs" want everyone to think of it, but they only experience >>>life because we raise them for food. >> >>Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get >>animals to experience life by then eating them, > > That's not our goal. It is your goal, and it's the goal you want vegans to hold as well. "Veg*nism does nothing at all to help farm animals. If people want to promote better lives for farm animals with their diet they need to be more conscientious consumers of animal products, *not!* veg*ns." Harrison 06 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3ovns "People who encourage vegetarianism are the worst enemy that the animals we raise for food have IMO. David Harrison - 09/13/1999 Stop lying, Harrison. >>that >>we ought to follow that principle to it's ultimate end >>and breed rats to eat instead of huge bovines? Surely, >>if your goal is to get ever more animals to experience >>life by eating them, we should breed thousands of rats >>instead of just three larger animals. In fact, if we're >>to follow your rule to its logical end, we must breed >>the smallest of animals possible to the detriment of >>our own species. Well, Harrison? Why don't you promote the eating of rats instead of large bovines? >>>I used to raise chickens, but >>>didn't eat many of their eggs. There were hens that I wanted to >>>keep, but didn't want to raise chicks from. >> >>Then you set a different standard for yourself than >>you do for the rest of humanity. >> >> What gives you the right to want to deprive >> them [unborn animals] of having what life >> they could have? >> David Harrison - 10/12/2001 > > I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives. Unlike myself, you set a standard which insists we ought to promote lives for farm animals by being conscientious consumers of animal products, yet you clearly didn't follow your own standard when depriving those chicks of what life they could have had. >>Are you aware that the nearest example you'll ever >>find of an immoral act is when a person fails to follow >>a maxim by which he can at the same time will that >>same maxim to become a universal law? > > How does that relate to you contributing to the deaths >of animals then? It doesn't, and that's because I don't contribute to the deaths of any animals. However, while you set the standard for others to promote lives for farm animals by eating them and fail to follow that same standard yourself, as you did with those chicks, you act immorally. >>>I could let them live for 6 months and then kill them, instead of not >>>letting them live at all. Why not? >> >>Because killing it brings an end to what you originally set >>out to do: allow an animal to experience life. > > What I would have originally set out to do would have >been to give them 6 months instead of nothing. Yet in another thread to this you insist there is no "them", Harrison, so how can you give something you've conceded doesn't exist 6 months life? [start - me to you] >Then make your case, Harrison. >1) prove non-existent beings exist They don't. [end] You also snipped out a part of the preceding post in this thread where I asked, "By "them", are you referring to currently living beasts or non-existent nothings?" <unsnip> >So those of you who are OPPOSED to seeing anyone else consider >them are really disgusting imo, By "them", are you referring to currently living beasts or non-existent nothings? <endsnip> Answer the question put to you without snipping it away in your reply. >>We do consider their lives. What we don't consider is >>your unsupported assertion that currently living livestock >>existed in any way, shape or form before conception. > > You're a liar to say I believe that. You're on record, claiming non-existent beings have substance of matter as well as a relative position of being alive before coming into being. Read on. [start, you] >>>The only reason you can benefit is because you >>>have life. >> >>Then that ruins your argument, because you >>have given the beneficiary of life a relative >>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged >>any further by giving it life. A benefit is >>something gained from a relative position, >>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative >>position of the beneficiary before life if not >>dead or unborn? > > Matter composing something else...sometimes >something living or sometimes not. You're joking! You've now given a non-existing beneficiary substance of matter as well as a relative position of being alive before birth. These are impossible circumstances which logic tells us cannot be [end] ipse dixit 02 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5qaov And you call ME a liar? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:46:58 GMT, wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:00:34 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:51:53 GMT, wrote: >>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The lives of potential future animals raised for food >>>>>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will >>>>>exist if nothing prevents them >>>> >>>>If we're going to give potential future beings any >>>>consideration at all, why should we assume that >>>>'their' current position can be bettered by bringing >>>>'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming >>>>into being might be preferable to 'them', especially >>>>if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for >>>>food or medical research. >> >>I think you ought to answer this question, > >"why should we assume that >'their' current position can be bettered by bringing >'them' into being?" > One reason is that since 'they' probably do not >exist, a decent life would be a good thing, imo. For whom or what would life be a good thing? > Your turn: > >why should we assume that >'their' current position is better than not bringing >'them' into being? That's what I'm asking you, Harrison, and you must find an answer or you'll have no position to argue from. >>because >>without an adequate explanation you don't have a >>position to argue from. > > The same goes even more for you No, it doesn't, so stop trying to divert the issue from yourself onto me, and answer the question. >>>>>Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops >>>>>their lives from happening is truly preventing animals >>>>>from having life they otherwise would have had. >>>>> Revised - 02/02/05 >>>> >>>>Until we know something of 'their' current state >>>>we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing >>>>'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and >>>>slaughtered after a few months, or used as human >>>>models for medical research. >>> >>> We might not be. >> >>Then make your case, Harrison. >>1) prove non-existent beings exist > > They don't. Yet in another thread to this this afternoon you've insisted they do exist when referring to your non- existent chicks as "them". "What I would have originally set out to do would have been to give them 6 months instead of nothing." In the same thread you also insist that anyone opposed to considering "them" are really disgusting. [start- you] >So those of you who are OPPOSED to seeing anyone >else consider them are really disgusting imo, [me] By "them", are you referring to currently living beasts or non-existent nothings? [end] Why did you snip that out without attempting to answer? >>2) prove that we can make changes to 'their' current >> position. > > We can't. What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? David Harrison - 10/12/2001 "Depriving" 'them' asserts we can make a change to 'their' current position. >>3) prove that 'their' current position needs to be >> improved from what it is to what you assert it >> should be: alive. > > "They" have no current position. You're on record, claiming non-existent beings have substance of matter as well as a relative position of being alive before coming into being. Read on. [start, you] >>>The only reason you can benefit is because you >>>have life. >> >>Then that ruins your argument, because you >>have given the beneficiary of life a relative >>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged >>any further by giving it life. A benefit is >>something gained from a relative position, >>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative >>position of the beneficiary before life if not >>dead or unborn? > > Matter composing something else...sometimes >something living or sometimes not. You're joking! You've now given a non-existing beneficiary substance of matter as well as a relative position of being alive before birth. These are impossible circumstances which logic tells us cannot be [end] ipse dixit 02 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5qaov Stop lying, Harrison. >>Until those conditions are met you don't have a valid >>position to argue from. > > That's a lie. When arguing; "Veg*nism does nothing at all to help farm animals. If people want to promote better lives for farm animals with their diet they need to be more conscientious consumers of animal products, *not!* veg*ns." Harrison 06 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3ovns "People who encourage vegetarianism are the worst enemy that the animals we raise for food have IMO. David Harrison - 09/13/1999 What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? David Harrison - 10/12/2001 but holding the view that 1) non-existent beings don't exist 2) we cannot make changes to 'their' current position. 3) we cannot prove that 'their' current position needs to be improved from what it is to what you assert it should be: alive. you have no position to argue from. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> =B7 The lives of potential future animals raised for food > are more than just "nothing" in the sense that ..=2E.in the sense that YOU believe they are SOMETHING, SOMETHING with an experiential welfa The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had. ****wit - 12/09/1999 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 01:18:35 GMT, wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:37:43 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:43:28 GMT, wrote: >>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:11:06 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>From: Rudy Canoza > >>>>>>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc >>>>>>>Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does >>>>>>>Message-ID: t> >>>>>>>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for >>>>>>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality >>>>>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>>>>>When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you >>>>>>go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring >>>>>>to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically >>>>>>left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon >>>>>>himself believes non-existent farm animals have some >>>>>>form of reality instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for >>>>>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you." >>>>>> >>>>>>Why did you lie, Harrison? >>>>> >>>>> Since I don't believe that, >>>> >>>>We'll see about 'that'. Read on. >>>> >>>>>the lie was in posting a sentence saying that I do. >>>> >>>>The lie was in posting an incomplete quote to lead the >>>>reader into believing Jon, rather than you, reckon non- >>>>existent animals have some kind of reality. >> >>Well, Harrison? Why did you lie to your readers in >>this way? Producing half a quote to misrepresent >>your opponent's position is lying. >> >>Look at the half-quotes I produced yesterday; they >>all misrepresent his position, and yet YOU took them >>as true statements without even checking for them, > > LOL! It's obvious what you were doing. Not to you, it wasn't. Aren't you going to apologise, if not to Jon, then to your readers for what you did? How will they ever trust you again? >>even while most of them began in lower-case letters. >> >> "animals have a "right" to be born. It's true" >> Jonathan Ball 28 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/5o7gy >> >> "I'm a closet "ARA"." >> Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9 >> >> "animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal >> "rights" activists are doing something immoral *to >> "unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination." >> Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm >> >> "animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER >> what the quality of that life is, is a good thing, >> Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9 >> >> "animals have rights." >> Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws >> >>And here's your effort; >> >> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for >> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality" >> Jonathan Ball 30 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/6466v >> >>Producing only part of a quote to misrepresent your >>opponent's position is a lie, > > That's what you Gonads have been doing to me >for years. Excusing your own wrongful behaviour by referring to the alleged wrongful behaviour of others doesn't get you off the hook. Producing only part of a quote to intentionally misrepresent your opponent's position is lying. > What I did was to remove a lie What you did was to intentionally misquote Jon. If his quote contained a lie, then you should have dealt with it in the proper way rather than edit it to misrepresent his position. >>>>>The Gonad wanted to >>>>>present the idea that they have some kind of reality, >>>> >>>>Rather, you edited out a vital part in his quote to give >>>>your readers that impression. You lied to them. >>> >>> No. >> >>You DID lie, Harrison, by editing his quote. He does >>NOT "present the idea that they have some kind of >>reality." > > Obviously he did, since he did it. Only your edited quote did it, Harrison. You're lying again, even after being caught red-handed. >>>>>and I just didn't include the lie at the end of his sentence. >>>> >>>>It wasn't a lie, Harrison, because >>> >>> You don't know. >> >>I DO know, > > That's a lie. Your archived quotes show that no one has lied about you, while on the other hand, your edited quote at the top of this post certainly shows that you've lied about those who produce your archived quotes. >>Harrison, because your whole quotes >>clearly reveal that you DO believe non-existent animals >>have some kind of reality, > > No they don't. Yes, they do. They show that you believe unconceived beings have substance of living matter, and further down this page you agree once again that this is so by stating, "I believe it's a possibility", and that, "There are billions of people who believe it to be true." You're a hopeless liar, Harrison. >>exactly as Jon originally wrote before you edited his quote. >> >>Review the following discussion between ourselves >>on this issue where you plainly assert unborn animals >>have substance of living matter, but before doing that, >>read this (below). >> >> [Why does the fact that I made the statement implicate >> that I believe it? All conversational implicature is based >> on certain rules (or "maxims", as the philosopher Paul >> Grice called them) which govern cooperative >> communication. One of these rules is that you should state >> only what you believe (which Grice called a maxim of >> "Quality"). Thus, from the fact that I state something, you >> can conclude that I believe it. Of course, I might be lying, >> but conversational implicature is based upon the presumption >> that people are trying to cooperate, and thus are obeying the >> rules.] >> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ >> >>Now let's look at those quotes of yours you snipped away >>again. >> >> [start - me to you] *my edit >> >>>>>>What proof are you going to offer that will >> >>>>>>prove it (life)* is a benefit? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The only reason you can benefit is because >> >>>>>you have life. >> >>>> >> >>>>Then that ruins your argument, because you >> >>>>have given the beneficiary of life a relative >> >>>>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged >> >>>>any further by giving it life. A benefit is >> >>>>something gained from a relative position, >> >>>>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative >> >>>>position of the beneficiary before life if not >> >>>>dead or unborn? >> >>> >> >>> Matter composing something else...sometimes >> >>>something living or sometimes not. >> >> >> >>You're joking! You've now given a non-existing >> >>beneficiary substance of matter as well as a >> >>relative position of being alive before birth. >> > >> > No position of being alive before birth, though >> >I consider it a possibility. >> >> It's not a possibility. Unborn animals do not >> have substance of matter, and they cannot >> be alive before coming into being. > > You have absolutely no way of knowing that. >I believe it's a possibility. Here we are, just as I told you. Once again you've conceded, contrary to your earlier lie further up this page, that unconceived animals have living substance of matter. >The Gonad believes it's a possibility. According to your edited quote he does, but we all know that that was a lie on your part now, so give it up. >There are billions of people who believe it to be true. Yet further up this page you insist I'm lying when trying to tell you "your whole quotes clearly reveal that you DO believe non-existent animals have some kind of reality" I obviously wasn't lying, seeing as you also reckon, "There are billions of people who believe it to be true." as well as yourself. >> Your quotes and this new revelation where >> unborn animals have substance of matter >> and possibly a life before coming into being >> are testament to your beliefs. > > No. Yes, they are. >That is a retarded interpretation. All things >are composed of matter. The unconceived are nothing and do not have any substance of matter, despite your unsupported assertion that "There are billions of people who believe it to be true." >> No one is >> insisting anything you haven't already insisted >> yourself, so if you have a contempt for me >> and for those who produce your quotes here >> in refutation to your claim that they've lied >> about your beliefs, then it is only from some >> deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on >> your part. > > LOL! You're not laughing, Harrison. You've been caught out. >>>>Jon and I do not 'stick together'. >>> >>> Bullshit. >> >>What you fail to realise is that when honest readers >>like myself spot a lie, they're obligated to reveal it. > > That's a ****ing lie. No, it is not. In fact my duty to reveal the lies I find and damn the consequences has put me in some very awkward positions with my own side over the years here, and elsewhere. >>And another thing you fail to realise it that while >>obligating me in this way you put me in a position >>I'd rather not be in. > > Then accept the God damn truth and expose >the Gonad's lies instead of lying along with him. He hasn't lied about you. All your quotes have been produced verbatim from Google archives and come with a link. You, on the other hand, have lied about Jon and myself. That much is clear. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> > From: Rudy Canoza > > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets= ..dogs.misc > Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit > David Harrison does > Message-ID: t> > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT > > Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for > some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to ****wit > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF Right: they DO have some kind of bizarre reality to you, ****wit. Why do you think I wrote that? > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Jonathan Ball > > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s > Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT > Message-ID: . net> > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT > > Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived, > pre-born state, or they do not. > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF What is so exceptional about that quote that you chose to reproduce it, ****wit? > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Jonathan Ball > > Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n > Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life. > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT > > The rational person realizes: > > 1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in > a 'pre-born' state. > > 2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF =B7 This is true. What's exceptional about it, ****wit? > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > =B7 Though we have no reason to believe there would > be any loss suffered by potential future animals if > "they" are never born No, no, NO, ****wit - THIS is what you believe: Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. ****wit - 08/01/2000 THAT is what you believe, ****wit. It is too late for the kind of BACK-PEDAL you attempted. > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: (Jonathan Ball) > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,alt.food.vegan > Subject: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, ****with > Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700 > > People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF Again, ****wit - what is exceptional about that? It's true: if a person feels that farm animal existence is ALWAYS bad deal for the animals, then it is sensible for that person to adopt "veganism". I am not a "vegan", ****wit. You have always known this. > __________________________________________________ _______ > Message-ID: > > From: Jonathan Ball > > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian > Subject: Don't forget, meat is a plant based food. > 10 Jun 2002 04:23:54 GMT > > "Vegans" don't want any livestock animals to live. > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF What is exceptional about that statement, ****wit? Do you dispute it? Do you think "vegans" DO want livestock animals to live? > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Jonathan Ball > > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,uk.politics.animals > Subject: Animal activist admits to setting fire > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:09:07 GMT > > "Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm > animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm > animals would live in bad conditions. > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF Again, a true statement. What do you find exceptional about it, ****wit? > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Jonathan Ball > > Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n > Subject: "getting to experience life" =3D the (il)logic of the larder > Message-ID: .net> > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:19:18 GMT > > the deliberate killing of animals for use by > humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it. > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF A true statement, ****wit. > __________________________________________________ _______ > Message-ID: > > From: Jonathan Ball > > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) > Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n > Subject: Karen Winter's abandonment of her son, and why it matters > Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:15:39 GMT > > killing the animals needlessly and merely for human convenience > is the worst violation of their rights. > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF =B7 You cheated on that one, ****wit; you lied. Here's what I wrote: It is irrelevant if the animals are consumed or not; in the view of "aras", killing the animals needlessly and merely for human convenience is the worst violation of their rights. "aras", not I, are the ones who view the killing as a violation of animals' rights, ****wit. You knew that. Why did you lie, ****wit? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:50:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:55:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get >> >> >animals to experience life by then eating them, >> >> >> >> That's not our goal. >> > >> >You propose that it ought to be a consideration, >> >> It should be of course. > >Of course it should not be. It is a consideration that has no impact on the >moral/ethical process. If one believes that it's wrong to use animals for >food then the fact that using them implies that "they get to experience >life" changes nothing. If one believes that it's right and proper to use >animals for food then considering that "they get to experience life" is >unecessary and extraneous. > >> >which is the same thing. >> >> That's a lie. If it were true, the same would be true of CDs, >> which according to your retardation would mean that "our >> goal" is to raise animals for food provide them with life cause >> the deaths of wildlife in crop fields cause the deaths of livestock >> plow fields plant fields treat fields with chemicals irrigate fields >> harvest crops process crops and whatever else is a consideration. > >We don't raise crops so that animals can predate them and "get to experience >life" either. The whole notion is nonsense. >> >> >[..] >> > >> >> I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives. >> >> Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal >> >> lives than you have? >> > >> >A life cannot be prevented, that's a logical impossibility. >> >> The lives of billions more livestock will occur if you "ARAs" >> are not successful in preventing them. > >So what? So you're wrong. >No animal is harmed or loses anything in that event. Why should we always choose wildlife in crop fields, over wildlife and livestock in grazing areas? Do you think if we did, there would always be fewer animals who experience harm or loss? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:06:08 +0000, Derek > lied:
> I don't contribute to the deaths of any animals. That's a lie. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
· The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state. Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops their lives from happening is truly preventing animals from having life they otherwise would have had. Revised - 02/02/05 __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does Message-ID: t> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have some kind of reality ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT Message-ID: . net> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived, pre-born state, or they do not. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life. Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT The rational person realizes: 1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in a 'pre-born' state. 2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ · |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:29 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:46:58 GMT, wrote: >>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:00:34 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:51:53 GMT, wrote: >>>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek > wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The lives of potential future animals raised for food >>>>>>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will >>>>>>exist if nothing prevents them >>>>> >>>>>If we're going to give potential future beings any >>>>>consideration at all, why should we assume that >>>>>'their' current position can be bettered by bringing >>>>>'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming >>>>>into being might be preferable to 'them', especially >>>>>if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for >>>>>food or medical research. >>> >>>I think you ought to answer this question, >> >>"why should we assume that >>'their' current position can be bettered by bringing >>'them' into being?" >> One reason is that since 'they' probably do not >>exist, a decent life would be a good thing, imo. > >For whom or what would life be a good thing? > >> Your turn: >> >>why should we assume that >>'their' current position is better than not bringing >>'them' into being? > >That's what I'm asking you, Harrison, and you must >find an answer or you'll have no position to argue from. Oh, okay. We have absolutely no reason to believe that 'they' have any current position, and there is no reason not to bring 'them' into being. We can agree on that from here on, and thanks for allowing me to answer for you. >>>because >>>without an adequate explanation you don't have a >>>position to argue from. >> >> The same goes even more for you > >No, it doesn't, It does, but since you let me answer for both of us we now both agree that your position is retarded. >so stop trying to divert the issue from >yourself onto me, You wanted to be the retard. >and answer the question. I answered for myself, and now I've answered for you too. >>>>>>Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops >>>>>>their lives from happening is truly preventing animals >>>>>>from having life they otherwise would have had. >>>>>> Revised - 02/02/05 >>>>> >>>>>Until we know something of 'their' current state >>>>>we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing >>>>>'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and >>>>>slaughtered after a few months, or used as human >>>>>models for medical research. >>>> >>>> We might not be. >>> >>>Then make your case, Harrison. >>>1) prove non-existent beings exist >> >> They don't. > >Yet in another thread to this this afternoon you've >insisted they do exist when referring to your non- >existent chicks as "them". > > "What I would have originally set out to do would > have been to give them 6 months instead of nothing." If they had gotten the 6 months there would have been them in the form of baby chicks. Since they didn't, there was still them in the form of zygotes. >In the same thread you also insist that anyone opposed >to considering "them" are really disgusting. > > [start- you] > >So those of you who are OPPOSED to seeing anyone > >else consider them are really disgusting imo, > [me] > By "them", are you referring to currently living beasts I'm referring to the animals we raise for food. > or non-existent nothings? > [end] We both give 'them' consideration. I'd like to see 'them' have decent lives. You would like to see 'them' never have any life. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison, cracker, wrote:
> =B7 The lives of potential future animals raised for food > are more than just "nothing" in the sense that ..=2E.in the sense that YOU, ****wit, believe they are SOMETHING, SOMETHING with an experiential reality: The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had. ****wit - 12/09/1999 You believe non-existent farm animals can experience loss, deprivation and unfairness, and that they can have "enemies": Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented. ****wit - 08/01/2000 What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have? ****wit - 10/12/2001 What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all. ****wit - 10/19/1999 People who encourage vegetarianism are the worst enemy that the animals we raise for food have IMO. ****wit - 09/13/1999 Nice lack of number agreement in that last one, you ****ing corncob. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:50:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > wrote >>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:55:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >> >Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get >>> >> >animals to experience life by then eating them, >>> >> >>> >> That's not our goal. >>> > >>> >You propose that it ought to be a consideration, >>> >>> It should be of course. >> >>Of course it should not be. It is a consideration that has no impact on >>the >>moral/ethical process. If one believes that it's wrong to use animals for >>food then the fact that using them implies that "they get to experience >>life" changes nothing. If one believes that it's right and proper to use >>animals for food then considering that "they get to experience life" is >>unecessary and extraneous. >> >>> >which is the same thing. >>> >>> That's a lie. If it were true, the same would be true of CDs, >>> which according to your retardation would mean that "our >>> goal" is to raise animals for food provide them with life cause >>> the deaths of wildlife in crop fields cause the deaths of livestock >>> plow fields plant fields treat fields with chemicals irrigate fields >>> harvest crops process crops and whatever else is a consideration. >> >>We don't raise crops so that animals can predate them and "get to >>experience >>life" either. The whole notion is nonsense. >>> >>> >[..] >>> > >>> >> I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives. >>> >> Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal >>> >> lives than you have? >>> > >>> >A life cannot be prevented, that's a logical impossibility. >>> >>> The lives of billions more livestock will occur if you "ARAs" >>> are not successful in preventing them. >> >>So what? > > So you're wrong. Fewer animals will be born is not the same as saying animals are prevented from living. The former is a valid statement (although not necessarily true) and the latter is a logical absurdity, you can't do anything to a non-existent animal. >>No animal is harmed or loses anything in that event. > > Why should we always choose wildlife in crop fields, over > wildlife and livestock in grazing areas? I don't advocate those particular ideas either way. It's stupid thinking. > Do you think if we > did, there would always be fewer animals who experience > harm or loss? Just get off this kick altogether. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Lab-Grown Meat May Save a Lot More than Farm Animals Lives | General Cooking | |||
| How producing ethical, zero-harm plant food for vegans and vegetarians kills more animals than, well, actually killing animals for the purpose of eating them. | General Cooking | |||
| "Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe | Vegan | |||
| IMAGINARY FRIENDS | Winemaking | |||
| No need for farm animals. | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
