Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-01-2005, 02:21 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality

Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
non-existent but not imaginary.

  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 10:02 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1 Feb 2005 11:47:32 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT,
wrote:

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality


Like what?

Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
non-existent but not imaginary.


What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.


You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit


It's the benefit which makes all others possible, yes.

even though you have
been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
definition of the word "benefit".


No, I never have. No one has been able to show that the
claim contradicts a respectable definition, and no one will be
able to.

Of course, it's a definition you
can't and never will be able to comprehend.

__________________________________________________ _______
BEN'EFIT, n. [Primarily from L. beneficium, or benefactum.]
[...]
2. Advantage
[...]
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...eb1828=benefit
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Life is the advantage=benefit which allows zygotes to grow
into animals. You must be either another, or the same moron.
Which is it Gonad? Are you you, or are you some other moron?


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 11:25 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005 11:47:32 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT,

wrote:

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality

Like what?

Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
non-existent but not imaginary.

What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.


You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit


It's the benefit which makes all others possible, yes.


No. The fact that life makes benefits possible does not make life
itself a benefit.

even though you have
been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
definition of the word "benefit".


No, I never have.


Yes you have. You're lying. Of course it was always in English which
you don't understand.

No one has been able to show that the
claim contradicts a respectable definition, and no one will be
able to.


You did it yourself below. Again, i's in English so you'll never
understand it.

Of course, it's a definition you
can't and never will be able to comprehend.

__________________________________________________ _______
BEN'EFIT, n. [Primarily from L. beneficium, or benefactum.]
[...]
2. Advantage
[...]

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...texts_web1828=
=3Dbenefit

=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
Life is the advantage=3Dbenefit which allows zygotes to grow
into animals.


No. To support your clai you must show that life is an advantage
compared to never existing. You can't, your whole rant is childish
bullshit.


You must be either another, or the same moron.

Quit talking to yourself.



Which is it Gonad? Are you you, or are you some other moron?


You clueless sister-****ing cracker. I called you "Jethro", see if
you can figure it out from that. The racist slimeball Ray already did,
so you're even more dimwitted than Ray; that's bad Jethro, real bad.
Now, show that an animal, ANY animal, is better off after it is born
than before. You've claimed it for years without supporting it, why is
that?

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-02-2005, 11:35 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You've really never paid attention to anything, have you Ray?

  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 12:20 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1 Feb 2005 14:25:46 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005 11:47:32 -0800,
wrote:


wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT,

wrote:

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality

Like what?

Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
non-existent but not imaginary.

What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.

You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit


It's the benefit which makes all others possible, yes.


No. The fact that life makes benefits possible does not make life
itself a benefit.

even though you have
been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
definition of the word "benefit".


No, I never have.


Yes you have. You're lying. Of course it was always in English which
you don't understand.

No one has been able to show that the
claim contradicts a respectable definition, and no one will be
able to.


You did it yourself below. Again, i's in English so you'll never
understand it.


LOL!

Of course, it's a definition you
can't and never will be able to comprehend.

__________________________________________________ _______
BEN'EFIT, n. [Primarily from L. beneficium, or benefactum.]
[...]
2. Advantage
[...]

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...eb1828=benefit

ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Life is the advantage=benefit which allows zygotes to grow
into animals.


No. To support your clai you must show that life is an advantage
compared to never existing.


Wrong. I only need point out that life is the advantage which
allows zygotes to grow into animals.

You can't, your whole rant is childish
bullshit.


You must be either another, or the same moron.

Quit talking to yourself.



Which is it Gonad? Are you you, or are you some other moron?


You clueless sister-****ing cracker. I called you "Jethro",


LOL! I mean: ooh, aren't you the special little fruit.

see if
you can figure it out from that. The racist slimeball Ray already did,


Yes, he said you are Brandumbass. That certainly doesn't mean
you're not the Gonad too though, 'dumbass.

so you're even more dimwitted than Ray; that's bad Jethro, real bad.
Now, show that an animal, ANY animal, is better off after it is born
than before. You've claimed it for years without supporting it, why is
that?


I've pointed out several times that if the unborn animals are not born,
they will die and so will their mothers. But you're too stupid to understand
even that much Brandumb.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 06:03 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:


Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality



Like what?


You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
unconceived farm animals are "something":

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 STUPID, STUPID redneck.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 07:53 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

For the 8,963rd time the sister-****ing uneducated cracker refuses to
support his dimwitted beliefs. Why can't you support your claims Jethro?



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 06:59 PM
Ray
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
You've really never paid attention to anything, have you Ray?


Certainly not to anything Bawl has to say.

But the fact that someone is calling him names is enough to satisfy his ego.
I have said many times that Jonathan Ball does not exist as a real person.
He is a 'Usenet'
bad guy. Just someone to take a pop at if we have had a bad day.

As such, he serves a purpose. But so does a public convenience!

Now tell me I'm a pillock, that's the way it goes Kevin, very sad eh?



  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 07:16 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:03:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:


Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality



Like what?


You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
unconceived farm animals are "something":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing" . . .
****wit - 12/09/1999


I'm revising it:

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
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 08:14 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****wit David Harrison wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:03:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:


Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality


Like what?


You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
unconceived farm animals are "something":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing" . . .
****wit - 12/09/1999


I'm revising it:

The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense


In the sense you believe they are SOMETHING. You believe they are
SOMETHING that can experience:

- loss: 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

- deprivation: What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 01/08/2002

- unfairness: 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 can have enemies:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the worst
enemy that [unconceived] animals we raise for food
have IMO.
****wit - 09/13/1999

No revisions allowed, ****wit. You are on the record, and you are not
really revising your thinking, you're just trying for a cheap revision
to the wording to something that will make you look slightly less
idiotic.

It won't work, ****wit. I'm still here to remind people of the truth
about your ****witted beliefs.

  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 08:24 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****wit David Harrison wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:03:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:


Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality


Like what?


You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
unconceived farm animals are "something":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing" . . .
****wit - 12/09/1999


I'm revising it:


No, you're not.


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 David Harrison
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.


That's nonsensical, ****wit. Your "whatever stops..." cannot logically
follow your "whether or not". If the animals DON'T exist, then you
cannot prevent "them" from "having" anything.

You, of course, believe they DO exist; that's why you keep writing
about preventing "them" from doing this and that. To you, ****WIT,
unconceived animals have a very real existence. You are an idiot for
thinking that, but there is zero doubt that you think it, and EVERY
shitty thing you've said over five and a half years of time wastage in
usenet is predicated on that belief. You'll never escape it, ****wit.

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2005, 09:02 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 9, 11:53 am). "

What's up with that, chickenshit Dreck?


Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater 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=AF=AF= 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
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?


Yes, why DID ****wit David Harrison lie?

But why would you be so concerned that this relatively innocuous
posting of yours not be archived, Dog-Beater Dreck? In any case, now
it WILL be archived.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lab-Grown Meat May Save a Lot More than Farm Animals’ Lives U.S. Janet B. General Cooking 25 09-04-2017 05:26 PM
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. ImStillMags General Cooking 87 06-01-2012 12:14 AM
"Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe Fred C. Dobbs[_3_] Vegan 13 24-06-2010 08:36 PM
IMAGINARY FRIENDS Andrew Carson Winemaking 0 15-12-2006 07:47 PM
No need for farm animals. Jonathan Ball Vegan 636 21-02-2004 08:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017