 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Burgers From a Lab?
http://tinyurl.com/doty9
-- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/doty9 Cool, that would put yet another dent in the mindless vegan (I know that's redundant) chatter about abusing animals, factory farming, etc. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/doty9 That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >>http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > > > That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, Not a moral issue, ****wit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit wrote:
>>http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > > That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which ....is specious and an irrelevant consideration. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > > That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is > what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about That doesn't matter. It would be a way to prevent the cruelty and at the same time allow meat eaters to still eat meat. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >wrote: >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about > >That doesn't matter. Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens there will be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that position... the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in your diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. >It would >be a way to prevent the cruelty It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever good there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would be prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but the cruelty involved with CDs. >and at the same time allow >meat eaters to still eat meat. Do you think it would be better if when food animals are born, they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never experience consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> >>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> >>wrote: >> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/doty9 >>> >>> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is >>>what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about >> >>That doesn't matter. > > > Right. Right. So you have no point. **** off, shut up and get out - you're done. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > >wrote: > >> > >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > >> > >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is > >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about > > > >That doesn't matter. > > Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens there will > be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that position... > the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in your > diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. True, and I wish there currently was a way to eliminate cds, but it may never happen. Mice and rats are similar to humans in the fact that we both reproduce too excessively and beyond our abilities to feed everyone. Then, territorially and class-wise based starvation and catastrophies occur. Anyways, where I'm going with this is as long as there are any survivors, there will be plentiful other field animals each year, even after catastrophic events like a plowing. > >It would > >be a way to prevent the cruelty > > It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever good > there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would be > prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but > the cruelty involved with CDs. There would still be enough kept as hobby farm animals. Unless some law is passed making raising and eating these animals illegal, and that's doubtful, then there will still be some around. Also, don't forget there are wild populations of many farmed animals. There would be no extinctions, just a lessening of numbers. The lab meat would simply make meat cheaper and easier to produce. Also, for people who don't want to give up meat, but want to reduce their cruelty to animals, lab meat could help. > >and at the same time allow > >meat eaters to still eat meat. > > Do you think it would be better if when food animals are born, > they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never experience > consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? It depends on what kind of life they would be facing otherwise. In many cases it would be a mercy, although not very practical, plus, how would they eat and plump up? And also the eater of that meat would get all sleepy and unconscious because of the coma drugs. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:13:07 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >wrote: >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message .. . >> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 >> >> >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is >> >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about >> > >> >That doesn't matter. >> >> Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens there >will >> be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that position... >> the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in your >> diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. > >True, and I wish there currently >was a way to eliminate cds, but >it may never happen. Mice and >rats are similar to humans in the >fact that we both reproduce too >excessively and beyond our >abilities to feed everyone. Then, >territorially and class-wise based >starvation and catastrophies occur. >Anyways, where I'm going with >this is as long as there are any >survivors, there will be plentiful >other field animals each year, >even after catastrophic events >like a plowing. You're only supposed to care about death, not life. I'm the only person around here who's supposed to acknowledge the lives of animals as well as their deaths. >> >It would >> >be a way to prevent the cruelty >> >> It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever good >> there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would be >> prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but >> the cruelty involved with CDs. > >There would still be enough kept >as hobby farm animals. Unless >some law is passed making raising >and eating these animals illegal, >and that's doubtful, then there >will still be some around. Also, >don't forget there are wild >populations of many farmed >animals. There would be no >extinctions, just a lessening >of numbers. The lab meat would >simply make meat cheaper >and easier to produce. Also, >for people who don't want to >give up meat, but want to reduce >their cruelty to animals, lab meat >could help. > >> >and at the same time allow >> >meat eaters to still eat meat. >> >> Do you think it would be better if when food animals are born, >> they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never experience >> consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? > >It depends on what kind of life >they would be facing otherwise. Sometimes you pretend to care about things like that, and other times you act like it doesn't matter. Why can't you be consistent? Either quality of life does matter, or it doesn't in regards to whether or not life is worth living. If you're in favor of "AR" you must feel that it does not matter like Dutch, Goo and Derek, but that raising animals for food is pure exploitation and that no farm animals have ever benefitted from farming. That's the difference between "AR" and AW. We've been through it before. You really should decide which you're going to side with imo. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rudy Canoza wrote: > dh@. wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > > > > >><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> > >>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > >> > >>wrote: > >> > >>>>http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > >>> > >>> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is > >>>what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about > >> > >>That doesn't matter. > > > > > > Right. > > Right. So you have no point. **** off, shut up and > get out - you're done. Hey Goo! we're waiting for you on the "Anticipation" thread. get your goober ass over there and start explaining. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. If it was BOOGERS from the lab, ~jonnie~ would be buying them by the ton. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:13:07 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > >wrote: > >> > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > .. . > >> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > > >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > >> >> > >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is > >> >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about > >> > > >> >That doesn't matter. > >> > >> Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens there > >will > >> be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that position... > >> the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in your > >> diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. > > > >True, and I wish there currently > >was a way to eliminate cds, but > >it may never happen. Mice and > >rats are similar to humans in the > >fact that we both reproduce too > >excessively and beyond our > >abilities to feed everyone. Then, > >territorially and class-wise based > >starvation and catastrophies occur. > >Anyways, where I'm going with > >this is as long as there are any > >survivors, there will be plentiful > >other field animals each year, > >even after catastrophic events > >like a plowing. > > You're only supposed to care about death, not life. > I'm the only person around here who's supposed to > acknowledge the lives of animals as well as their > deaths. I never follow the rules.  > >> >It would > >> >be a way to prevent the cruelty > >> > >> It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever good > >> there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would be > >> prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but > >> the cruelty involved with CDs. > > > >There would still be enough kept > >as hobby farm animals. Unless > >some law is passed making raising > >and eating these animals illegal, > >and that's doubtful, then there > >will still be some around. Also, > >don't forget there are wild > >populations of many farmed > >animals. There would be no > >extinctions, just a lessening > >of numbers. The lab meat would > >simply make meat cheaper > >and easier to produce. Also, > >for people who don't want to > >give up meat, but want to reduce > >their cruelty to animals, lab meat > >could help. > > > >> >and at the same time allow > >> >meat eaters to still eat meat. > >> > >> Do you think it would be better if when food animals are born, > >> they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never experience > >> consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? > > > >It depends on what kind of life > >they would be facing otherwise. > > Sometimes you pretend to care about things like > that, and other times you act like it doesn't matter. > Why can't you be consistent? Either quality of life > does matter, or it doesn't in regards to whether or > not life is worth living. If you're in favor of "AR" you > must feel that it does not matter like Dutch, Goo > and Derek, but that raising animals for food is pure > exploitation and that no farm animals have ever > benefitted from farming. That's the difference > between "AR" and AW. We've been through it > before. You really should decide which you're going > to side with imo. Maybe I don't fit either category as you describe it. I would like to see factory farms gone completely yet I don't want to see any domestic animal go extinct. I would also like to see cds eliminated, but I can't think of any way to practically do that. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gerbil pumpin' jonnie" > wrote in message
oups.com... > > > Scented Nectar wrote: > > http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > > > > > > > > -- > > SN > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > > > If it was BOOGERS from the lab, ~jonnie~ would be buying them by the > ton. Yikes!! )) I wonder does hecook them or eat them raw? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> True, and I wish there currently > was a way to eliminate cds, We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Scented Nectar wrote: > > True, and I wish there currently > > was a way to eliminate cds, > > We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from > YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. Yeh...sure...whatever ~jonnie~. Have another plate full of boogers. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > "Gerbil pumpin' jonnie" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > > > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > SN > > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > > > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > > > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > > > > > > > If it was BOOGERS from the lab, ~jonnie~ would be buying them by the > > ton. > > Yikes!! )) I wonder does he> cook them or eat them raw? raw.......by the handful. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. . > Scented Nectar wrote: > > True, and I wish there currently > > was a way to eliminate cds, > > We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from > YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. Oh, not this garbage again, as per Usual. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > .. . > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>True, and I wish there currently >>>was a way to eliminate cds, >> >>We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from >>YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. > > > Oh, not this garbage again, It's not garbage. They're feasible - for someone who REALLY means what she says about believing it to be wrong to kill animals. Obviously, you don't really believe it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > .. . > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>True, and I wish there currently > >>>was a way to eliminate cds, > >> > >>We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from > >>YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. > > > > > > Oh, not this garbage again, > > It's not garbage. They're feasible - for someone who > REALLY means what she says about believing it to be > wrong to kill animals. Obviously, you don't really > believe it. At least I do what I reasonably can. You don't even do that. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message m... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>True, and I wish there currently >>>>>was a way to eliminate cds, >>>> >>>>We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from >>>>YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. >>> >>> >>>Oh, not this garbage again, >> >>It's not garbage. They're feasible - for someone who >>REALLY means what she says about believing it to be >>wrong to kill animals. Obviously, you don't really >>believe it. > > > At least I do what I reasonably > can. You don't do anything but lip service. It's empty air. > You don't even do that. I'm not the one who staked out a ****witted, impossible, goofy ethics. You are. You're under a different standard as a result. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:20:33 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:13:07 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >wrote: >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message .. . >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message >> .. . >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" >> > >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 >> >> >> >> >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is >> >> >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about >> >> > >> >> >That doesn't matter. >> >> >> >> Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens there >> >will >> >> be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that position... >> >> the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in your >> >> diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. >> > >> >True, and I wish there currently >> >was a way to eliminate cds, but >> >it may never happen. Mice and >> >rats are similar to humans in the >> >fact that we both reproduce too >> >excessively and beyond our >> >abilities to feed everyone. Then, >> >territorially and class-wise based >> >starvation and catastrophies occur. >> >Anyways, where I'm going with >> >this is as long as there are any >> >survivors, there will be plentiful >> >other field animals each year, >> >even after catastrophic events >> >like a plowing. >> >> You're only supposed to care about death, not life. >> I'm the only person around here who's supposed to >> acknowledge the lives of animals as well as their >> deaths. > >I never follow the rules. Well if you're going to encourage consideration of their lives, then go a little stronger at it would ya'? I'd be interested in Goo's reaction if you did that. >> >> >It would >> >> >be a way to prevent the cruelty >> >> >> >> It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever good >> >> there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would be >> >> prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but >> >> the cruelty involved with CDs. >> > >> >There would still be enough kept >> >as hobby farm animals. Unless >> >some law is passed making raising >> >and eating these animals illegal, >> >and that's doubtful, then there >> >will still be some around. Also, >> >don't forget there are wild >> >populations of many farmed >> >animals. There would be no >> >extinctions, just a lessening >> >of numbers. The lab meat would >> >simply make meat cheaper >> >and easier to produce. Also, >> >for people who don't want to >> >give up meat, but want to reduce >> >their cruelty to animals, lab meat >> >could help. >> > >> >> >and at the same time allow >> >> >meat eaters to still eat meat. >> >> >> >> Do you think it would be better if when food animals are born, >> >> they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never experience >> >> consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? >> > >> >It depends on what kind of life >> >they would be facing otherwise. >> >> Sometimes you pretend to care about things like >> that, and other times you act like it doesn't matter. >> Why can't you be consistent? Either quality of life >> does matter, or it doesn't in regards to whether or >> not life is worth living. If you're in favor of "AR" you >> must feel that it does not matter like Dutch, Goo >> and Derek, but that raising animals for food is pure >> exploitation and that no farm animals have ever >> benefitted from farming. That's the difference >> between "AR" and AW. We've been through it >> before. You really should decide which you're going >> to side with imo. > >Maybe I don't fit either category >as you describe it. I would like to >see factory farms gone completely >yet I don't want to see any domestic >animal go extinct. AFAIK there are 3 possibilities: 1. stop raising animals for food. 2. raise them but don't worry about quality of life. 3. raise them and deliberately provide them with decent lives. >I would also like >to see cds eliminated, but I can't >think of any way to practically do >that. The only way is to eliminate the lives that would become cds. If people could prevent life in crop fields then there it would be. As I point out, the "AR" concept is not about providing rights, it's about preventing life. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:20:33 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:13:07 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > >wrote: > >> > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > .. . > >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > > >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > >> .. . > >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> > > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is > >> >> >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about > >> >> > > >> >> >That doesn't matter. > >> >> > >> >> Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens there > >> >will > >> >> be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that position... > >> >> the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in your > >> >> diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. > >> > > >> >True, and I wish there currently > >> >was a way to eliminate cds, but > >> >it may never happen. Mice and > >> >rats are similar to humans in the > >> >fact that we both reproduce too > >> >excessively and beyond our > >> >abilities to feed everyone. Then, > >> >territorially and class-wise based > >> >starvation and catastrophies occur. > >> >Anyways, where I'm going with > >> >this is as long as there are any > >> >survivors, there will be plentiful > >> >other field animals each year, > >> >even after catastrophic events > >> >like a plowing. > >> > >> You're only supposed to care about death, not life. > >> I'm the only person around here who's supposed to > >> acknowledge the lives of animals as well as their > >> deaths. > > > >I never follow the rules. > > Well if you're going to encourage consideration of > their lives, then go a little stronger at it would ya'? > I'd be interested in Goo's reaction if you did that. Well, let's see. I wonder what Gooby thinks of this. If thefield animals didn't repopulate every year there would be no new cds on the farm. But they do, so at least they are not going extinct. One could say that the animals are choosing a life that may be short for the chance at plentiful food for most of the season. They could go live in a wild field instead and have less fatalities but they've chosen to buy the farm. > >> >> >It would > >> >> >be a way to prevent the cruelty > >> >> > >> >> It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever good > >> >> there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would be > >> >> prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but > >> >> the cruelty involved with CDs. > >> > > >> >There would still be enough kept > >> >as hobby farm animals. Unless > >> >some law is passed making raising > >> >and eating these animals illegal, > >> >and that's doubtful, then there > >> >will still be some around. Also, > >> >don't forget there are wild > >> >populations of many farmed > >> >animals. There would be no > >> >extinctions, just a lessening > >> >of numbers. The lab meat would > >> >simply make meat cheaper > >> >and easier to produce. Also, > >> >for people who don't want to > >> >give up meat, but want to reduce > >> >their cruelty to animals, lab meat > >> >could help. > >> > > >> >> >and at the same time allow > >> >> >meat eaters to still eat meat. > >> >> > >> >> Do you think it would be better if when food animals are born, > >> >> they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never experience > >> >> consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? > >> > > >> >It depends on what kind of life > >> >they would be facing otherwise. > >> > >> Sometimes you pretend to care about things like > >> that, and other times you act like it doesn't matter. > >> Why can't you be consistent? Either quality of life > >> does matter, or it doesn't in regards to whether or > >> not life is worth living. If you're in favor of "AR" you > >> must feel that it does not matter like Dutch, Goo > >> and Derek, but that raising animals for food is pure > >> exploitation and that no farm animals have ever > >> benefitted from farming. That's the difference > >> between "AR" and AW. We've been through it > >> before. You really should decide which you're going > >> to side with imo. > > > >Maybe I don't fit either category > >as you describe it. I would like to > >see factory farms gone completely > >yet I don't want to see any domestic > >animal go extinct. > > AFAIK there are 3 possibilities: > > 1. stop raising animals for food. > 2. raise them but don't worry about quality of life. > 3. raise them and deliberately provide them with > decent lives. I would choose in the following order, 1,3, then 2. I still don't like the idea of killing them for food, but they could make great farm pets so as to prevent extinction. Since I doubt by far that 1. will ever happen, it looks like 3. wins out. > >I would also like > >to see cds eliminated, but I can't > >think of any way to practically do > >that. > > The only way is to eliminate the lives that would > become cds. If people could prevent life in crop fields > then there it would be. As I point out, the "AR" concept > is not about providing rights, it's about preventing life. I'm ok with that if the life would have been a miserable one. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > nk.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > m... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>True, and I wish there currently > >>>>>was a way to eliminate cds, > >>>> > >>>>We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from > >>>>YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. > >>> > >>> > >>>Oh, not this garbage again, > >> > >>It's not garbage. They're feasible - for someone who > >>REALLY means what she says about believing it to be > >>wrong to kill animals. Obviously, you don't really > >>believe it. > > > > > > At least I do what I reasonably > > can. > > You don't do anything but lip service. It's empty air. In your opinion, which doesn't count for much. > > You don't even do that. > > I'm not the one who staked out a ****witted, > impossible, goofy ethics. You are. You're under a > different standard as a result. I determine my standards, not you, Gooby. What's so impossible about doing the best one reasonably can? Also, if you call people immature insults like ****wit, then people will return in kind with words like Gooby for you. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:30:21 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:20:33 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message .. . >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:13:07 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message >> .. . >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" >> > >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message >> >> .. . >> >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" >> >> > >> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is >> >> >> >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about >> >> >> > >> >> >> >That doesn't matter. >> >> >> >> >> >> Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens >there >> >> >will >> >> >> be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that >position... >> >> >> the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in >your >> >> >> diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. >> >> > >> >> >True, and I wish there currently >> >> >was a way to eliminate cds, but >> >> >it may never happen. Mice and >> >> >rats are similar to humans in the >> >> >fact that we both reproduce too >> >> >excessively and beyond our >> >> >abilities to feed everyone. Then, >> >> >territorially and class-wise based >> >> >starvation and catastrophies occur. >> >> >Anyways, where I'm going with >> >> >this is as long as there are any >> >> >survivors, there will be plentiful >> >> >other field animals each year, >> >> >even after catastrophic events >> >> >like a plowing. >> >> >> >> You're only supposed to care about death, not life. >> >> I'm the only person around here who's supposed to >> >> acknowledge the lives of animals as well as their >> >> deaths. >> > >> >I never follow the rules. >> >> Well if you're going to encourage consideration of >> their lives, then go a little stronger at it would ya'? >> I'd be interested in Goo's reaction if you did that. > >Well, let's see. I wonder what >Gooby thinks of this. If the>field animals didn't repopulate >every year there would be no >new cds on the farm. But they >do, so at least they are not >going extinct. Try placing some value on the life experience of the animals. >One could say >that the animals are choosing >a life that may be short for the >chance at plentiful food for >most of the season. They >could go live in a wild field >instead and have less fatalities >but they've chosen to buy the >farm. They're not in a position to make that choice, because they don't know the situation. >> >> >> >It would >> >> >> >be a way to prevent the cruelty >> >> >> >> >> >> It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever good >> >> >> there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would be >> >> >> prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but >> >> >> the cruelty involved with CDs. >> >> > >> >> >There would still be enough kept >> >> >as hobby farm animals. Unless >> >> >some law is passed making raising >> >> >and eating these animals illegal, >> >> >and that's doubtful, then there >> >> >will still be some around. Also, >> >> >don't forget there are wild >> >> >populations of many farmed >> >> >animals. There would be no >> >> >extinctions, just a lessening >> >> >of numbers. The lab meat would >> >> >simply make meat cheaper >> >> >and easier to produce. Also, >> >> >for people who don't want to >> >> >give up meat, but want to reduce >> >> >their cruelty to animals, lab meat >> >> >could help. >> >> > >> >> >> >and at the same time allow >> >> >> >meat eaters to still eat meat. >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you think it would be better if when food animals are born, >> >> >> they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never experience >> >> >> consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? >> >> > >> >> >It depends on what kind of life >> >> >they would be facing otherwise. >> >> >> >> Sometimes you pretend to care about things like >> >> that, and other times you act like it doesn't matter. >> >> Why can't you be consistent? Either quality of life >> >> does matter, or it doesn't in regards to whether or >> >> not life is worth living. If you're in favor of "AR" you >> >> must feel that it does not matter like Dutch, Goo >> >> and Derek, but that raising animals for food is pure >> >> exploitation and that no farm animals have ever >> >> benefitted from farming. That's the difference >> >> between "AR" and AW. We've been through it >> >> before. You really should decide which you're going >> >> to side with imo. >> > >> >Maybe I don't fit either category >> >as you describe it. I would like to >> >see factory farms gone completely >> >yet I don't want to see any domestic >> >animal go extinct. >> >> AFAIK there are 3 possibilities: >> >> 1. stop raising animals for food. >> 2. raise them but don't worry about quality of life. >> 3. raise them and deliberately provide them with >> decent lives. > >I would choose in the following >order, 1, Then you're in favor or their elimination. >3, then 2. I still don't >like the idea of killing them for >food, Then you're opposed to them living for food. >but they could make great >farm pets so as to prevent >extinction. Not if provided a right to freedom. >Since I doubt by >far that 1. will ever happen, it >looks like 3. wins out. That means life for billions of animals. >> >I would also like >> >to see cds eliminated, but I can't >> >think of any way to practically do >> >that. >> >> The only way is to eliminate the lives that would >> become cds. If people could prevent life in crop fields >> then there it would be. As I point out, the "AR" concept >> is not about providing rights, it's about preventing life. > >I'm ok with that if the life would >have been a miserable one. How about if it would have been a decent one? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > nk.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > m... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>True, and I wish there currently > >>>>>was a way to eliminate cds, > >>>> > >>>>We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from > >>>>YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. > >>> > >>> > >>>Oh, not this garbage again, > >> > >>It's not garbage. They're feasible - for someone who > >>REALLY means what she says about believing it to be > >>wrong to kill animals. Obviously, you don't really > >>believe it. > > > > > > At least I do what I reasonably > > can. > > You don't do anything but lip service. It's empty air. > and all you do Gooby is punch away at empty air. Why not grow some gonads and take my ice cream experiment? Eat 8 fl. oz. of ice cream daily without fail for 6 full months. > > > You don't even do that. > > I'm not the one who staked out a ****witted, > impossible, goofy ethics. You are. You're under a > different standard as a result. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Skanky wrote:
>>>True, and I wish there currently >>>was a way to eliminate cds, >> >>We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from >>YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. > > Oh, not this You know you can reduce or eliminate CDs. You just object to doing it. Why do you refuse to stop killing animals, Skanky? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>True, and I wish there currently >>>>>was a way to eliminate cds, >>>> >>>>We've given you suggestions how to reduce or even eliminate them from >>>>YOUR consumption. You've stubbornly refused to practice what you preach. >>> >>> >>>Oh, not this garbage again, >> >>It's not garbage. They're feasible - for someone who >>REALLY means what she says about believing it to be >>wrong to kill animals. Obviously, you don't really >>believe it. > > At least I do nothing. You SAY one thing and DO another. You refuse to do even simple things to reduce CDs because your platitudes about saving animals are empty -- a load of bullshit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:30:21 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:20:33 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > .. . > >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:13:07 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > > >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > >> .. . > >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> > > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > >> >> .. . > >> >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> >> > > >> >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which is > >> >> >> >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >That doesn't matter. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens > >there > >> >> >will > >> >> >> be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that > >position... > >> >> >> the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in > >your > >> >> >> diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. > >> >> > > >> >> >True, and I wish there currently > >> >> >was a way to eliminate cds, but > >> >> >it may never happen. Mice and > >> >> >rats are similar to humans in the > >> >> >fact that we both reproduce too > >> >> >excessively and beyond our > >> >> >abilities to feed everyone. Then, > >> >> >territorially and class-wise based > >> >> >starvation and catastrophies occur. > >> >> >Anyways, where I'm going with > >> >> >this is as long as there are any > >> >> >survivors, there will be plentiful > >> >> >other field animals each year, > >> >> >even after catastrophic events > >> >> >like a plowing. > >> >> > >> >> You're only supposed to care about death, not life. > >> >> I'm the only person around here who's supposed to > >> >> acknowledge the lives of animals as well as their > >> >> deaths. > >> > > >> >I never follow the rules. > >> > >> Well if you're going to encourage consideration of > >> their lives, then go a little stronger at it would ya'? > >> I'd be interested in Goo's reaction if you did that. > > > >Well, let's see. I wonder what > >Gooby thinks of this. If the> >field animals didn't repopulate > >every year there would be no > >new cds on the farm. But they > >do, so at least they are not > >going extinct. > > Try placing some value on the life experience > of the animals. Except for the shorter life spans and the bad type of death, the future cds have life as good as it gets in the wild. > >One could say > >that the animals are choosing > >a life that may be short for the > >chance at plentiful food for > >most of the season. They > >could go live in a wild field > >instead and have less fatalities > >but they've chosen to buy the > >farm. > > They're not in a position to make that choice, > because they don't know the situation. Actually, you're right. Natural selection would favour the ones who survived that year, meaning the ones who are not afraid to go back to the field since they don't associate it with harm. > >> >> >> >It would > >> >> >> >be a way to prevent the cruelty > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever good > >> >> >> there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would be > >> >> >> prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but > >> >> >> the cruelty involved with CDs. > >> >> > > >> >> >There would still be enough kept > >> >> >as hobby farm animals. Unless > >> >> >some law is passed making raising > >> >> >and eating these animals illegal, > >> >> >and that's doubtful, then there > >> >> >will still be some around. Also, > >> >> >don't forget there are wild > >> >> >populations of many farmed > >> >> >animals. There would be no > >> >> >extinctions, just a lessening > >> >> >of numbers. The lab meat would > >> >> >simply make meat cheaper > >> >> >and easier to produce. Also, > >> >> >for people who don't want to > >> >> >give up meat, but want to reduce > >> >> >their cruelty to animals, lab meat > >> >> >could help. > >> >> > > >> >> >> >and at the same time allow > >> >> >> >meat eaters to still eat meat. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Do you think it would be better if when food animals are born, > >> >> >> they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never experience > >> >> >> consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? > >> >> > > >> >> >It depends on what kind of life > >> >> >they would be facing otherwise. > >> >> > >> >> Sometimes you pretend to care about things like > >> >> that, and other times you act like it doesn't matter. > >> >> Why can't you be consistent? Either quality of life > >> >> does matter, or it doesn't in regards to whether or > >> >> not life is worth living. If you're in favor of "AR" you > >> >> must feel that it does not matter like Dutch, Goo > >> >> and Derek, but that raising animals for food is pure > >> >> exploitation and that no farm animals have ever > >> >> benefitted from farming. That's the difference > >> >> between "AR" and AW. We've been through it > >> >> before. You really should decide which you're going > >> >> to side with imo. > >> > > >> >Maybe I don't fit either category > >> >as you describe it. I would like to > >> >see factory farms gone completely > >> >yet I don't want to see any domestic > >> >animal go extinct. > >> > >> AFAIK there are 3 possibilities: > >> > >> 1. stop raising animals for food. > >> 2. raise them but don't worry about quality of life. > >> 3. raise them and deliberately provide them with > >> decent lives. > > > >I would choose in the following > >order, 1, > > Then you're in favor or their elimination. Mostly. I don't want to see any extinctions though, just the elimination of for-food animals. > >3, then 2. I still don't > >like the idea of killing them for > >food, > > Then you're opposed to them living for food. Yes. > >but they could make great > >farm pets so as to prevent > >extinction. > > Not if provided a right to freedom. There are already wild populations of most farmed animals. But the ones that already exist, are not trained from birth to live in the wild. > >Since I doubt by > >far that 1. will ever happen, it > >looks like 3. wins out. > > That means life for billions of animals. Not necessarily good lives. > >> >I would also like > >> >to see cds eliminated, but I can't > >> >think of any way to practically do > >> >that. > >> > >> The only way is to eliminate the lives that would > >> become cds. If people could prevent life in crop fields > >> then there it would be. As I point out, the "AR" concept > >> is not about providing rights, it's about preventing life. > > > >I'm ok with that if the life would > >have been a miserable one. > > How about if it would have been a decent one? If it's a decent life, then I think that people should not kill them so young, ending their good lives. Ideally I would like to see them not killed at all. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:26:05 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:30:21 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message .. . >> >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:20:33 -0400, "Scented Nectar" >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message >> .. . >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:13:07 -0400, "Scented Nectar" >> > >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message >> >> .. . >> >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" >> >> > >> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message >> >> >> .. . >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which >is >> >> >> >> >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >That doesn't matter. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens >> >there >> >> >> >will >> >> >> >> be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that >> >position... >> >> >> >> the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in >> >your >> >> >> >> diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >True, and I wish there currently >> >> >> >was a way to eliminate cds, but >> >> >> >it may never happen. Mice and >> >> >> >rats are similar to humans in the >> >> >> >fact that we both reproduce too >> >> >> >excessively and beyond our >> >> >> >abilities to feed everyone. Then, >> >> >> >territorially and class-wise based >> >> >> >starvation and catastrophies occur. >> >> >> >Anyways, where I'm going with >> >> >> >this is as long as there are any >> >> >> >survivors, there will be plentiful >> >> >> >other field animals each year, >> >> >> >even after catastrophic events >> >> >> >like a plowing. >> >> >> >> >> >> You're only supposed to care about death, not life. >> >> >> I'm the only person around here who's supposed to >> >> >> acknowledge the lives of animals as well as their >> >> >> deaths. >> >> > >> >> >I never follow the rules. >> >> >> >> Well if you're going to encourage consideration of >> >> their lives, then go a little stronger at it would ya'? >> >> I'd be interested in Goo's reaction if you did that. >> > >> >Well, let's see. I wonder what >> >Gooby thinks of this. If the>> >field animals didn't repopulate >> >every year there would be no >> >new cds on the farm. But they >> >do, so at least they are not >> >going extinct. >> >> Try placing some value on the life experience >> of the animals. > >Except for the shorter life >spans and the bad type of >death, the future cds have >life as good as it gets in the >wild. Some do and some don't. >> >One could say >> >that the animals are choosing >> >a life that may be short for the >> >chance at plentiful food for >> >most of the season. They >> >could go live in a wild field >> >instead and have less fatalities >> >but they've chosen to buy the >> >farm. >> >> They're not in a position to make that choice, >> because they don't know the situation. > >Actually, you're right. Natural >selection would favour the ones >who survived that year, meaning >the ones who are not afraid to >go back to the field since they >don't associate it with harm. They must be prevented in order to prevent their deaths. >> >> >> >> >It would >> >> >> >> >be a way to prevent the cruelty >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever >good >> >> >> >> there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would >be >> >> >> >> prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but >> >> >> >> the cruelty involved with CDs. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >There would still be enough kept >> >> >> >as hobby farm animals. Unless >> >> >> >some law is passed making raising >> >> >> >and eating these animals illegal, >> >> >> >and that's doubtful, then there >> >> >> >will still be some around. Also, >> >> >> >don't forget there are wild >> >> >> >populations of many farmed >> >> >> >animals. There would be no >> >> >> >extinctions, just a lessening >> >> >> >of numbers. The lab meat would >> >> >> >simply make meat cheaper >> >> >> >and easier to produce. Also, >> >> >> >for people who don't want to >> >> >> >give up meat, but want to reduce >> >> >> >their cruelty to animals, lab meat >> >> >> >could help. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >and at the same time allow >> >> >> >> >meat eaters to still eat meat. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you think it would be better if when food animals are >born, >> >> >> >> they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never >experience >> >> >> >> consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >It depends on what kind of life >> >> >> >they would be facing otherwise. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sometimes you pretend to care about things like >> >> >> that, and other times you act like it doesn't matter. >> >> >> Why can't you be consistent? Either quality of life >> >> >> does matter, or it doesn't in regards to whether or >> >> >> not life is worth living. If you're in favor of "AR" you >> >> >> must feel that it does not matter like Dutch, Goo >> >> >> and Derek, but that raising animals for food is pure >> >> >> exploitation and that no farm animals have ever >> >> >> benefitted from farming. That's the difference >> >> >> between "AR" and AW. We've been through it >> >> >> before. You really should decide which you're going >> >> >> to side with imo. >> >> > >> >> >Maybe I don't fit either category >> >> >as you describe it. I would like to >> >> >see factory farms gone completely >> >> >yet I don't want to see any domestic >> >> >animal go extinct. >> >> >> >> AFAIK there are 3 possibilities: >> >> >> >> 1. stop raising animals for food. >> >> 2. raise them but don't worry about quality of life. >> >> 3. raise them and deliberately provide them with >> >> decent lives. >> > >> >I would choose in the following >> >order, 1, >> >> Then you're in favor or their elimination. > >Mostly. I don't want to see any >extinctions though, just the >elimination of for-food animals. The for-food animals would be extinct. · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small variety of animals are raised. The animals in those habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg that begin their particular existence. Those animals will only live if people continue to raise them for food. Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers for their existence. · >> >3, then 2. I still don't >> >like the idea of killing them for >> >food, >> >> Then you're opposed to them living for food. > >Yes. > >> >but they could make great >> >farm pets so as to prevent >> >extinction. >> >> Not if provided a right to freedom. > >There are already wild populations >of most farmed animals. But the >ones that already exist, are not >trained from birth to live in the >wild. > >> >Since I doubt by >> >far that 1. will ever happen, it >> >looks like 3. wins out. >> >> That means life for billions of animals. > >Not necessarily good lives. > >> >> >I would also like >> >> >to see cds eliminated, but I can't >> >> >think of any way to practically do >> >> >that. >> >> >> >> The only way is to eliminate the lives that would >> >> become cds. If people could prevent life in crop fields >> >> then there it would be. As I point out, the "AR" concept >> >> is not about providing rights, it's about preventing life. >> > >> >I'm ok with that if the life would >> >have been a miserable one. >> >> How about if it would have been a decent one? > >If it's a decent life, then I think >that people should not kill them >so young, ending their good >lives. Ideally I would like to see >them not killed at all. · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. · |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:26:05 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:30:21 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > .. . > >> >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:20:33 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > >> .. . > >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:13:07 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> > > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > >> >> .. . > >> >> >> >> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:21:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> >> > > >> >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > >> >> >> .. . > >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:06:50 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/doty9 > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> That would prevent the lives of billions of animals, which > >is > >> >> >> >> >> what the gross misnomer "Animal Rights" is all about > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >That doesn't matter. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Right. It only matters until that happens...after it happens > >> >there > >> >> >> >will > >> >> >> >> be nothing left to consider but CDs. You're already in that > >> >position... > >> >> >> >> the only thing that matters in your diet are CDs. Nothing else in > >> >your > >> >> >> >> diet means anything in regards to cruelty to animals. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >True, and I wish there currently > >> >> >> >was a way to eliminate cds, but > >> >> >> >it may never happen. Mice and > >> >> >> >rats are similar to humans in the > >> >> >> >fact that we both reproduce too > >> >> >> >excessively and beyond our > >> >> >> >abilities to feed everyone. Then, > >> >> >> >territorially and class-wise based > >> >> >> >starvation and catastrophies occur. > >> >> >> >Anyways, where I'm going with > >> >> >> >this is as long as there are any > >> >> >> >survivors, there will be plentiful > >> >> >> >other field animals each year, > >> >> >> >even after catastrophic events > >> >> >> >like a plowing. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You're only supposed to care about death, not life. > >> >> >> I'm the only person around here who's supposed to > >> >> >> acknowledge the lives of animals as well as their > >> >> >> deaths. > >> >> > > >> >> >I never follow the rules. > >> >> > >> >> Well if you're going to encourage consideration of > >> >> their lives, then go a little stronger at it would ya'? > >> >> I'd be interested in Goo's reaction if you did that. > >> > > >> >Well, let's see. I wonder what > >> >Gooby thinks of this. If the> >> >field animals didn't repopulate > >> >every year there would be no > >> >new cds on the farm. But they > >> >do, so at least they are not > >> >going extinct. > >> > >> Try placing some value on the life experience > >> of the animals. > > > >Except for the shorter life > >spans and the bad type of > >death, the future cds have > >life as good as it gets in the > >wild. > > Some do and some don't. Life in the wild varies. > >> >One could say > >> >that the animals are choosing > >> >a life that may be short for the > >> >chance at plentiful food for > >> >most of the season. They > >> >could go live in a wild field > >> >instead and have less fatalities > >> >but they've chosen to buy the > >> >farm. > >> > >> They're not in a position to make that choice, > >> because they don't know the situation. > > > >Actually, you're right. Natural > >selection would favour the ones > >who survived that year, meaning > >the ones who are not afraid to > >go back to the field since they > >don't associate it with harm. > > They must be prevented in order to prevent their deaths. That would require the ridding of a field of them, and then putting up special fences so they don't get back in. I doubt most farmers would do that. > >> >> >> >> >It would > >> >> >> >> >be a way to prevent the cruelty > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It would also prevent the decent and good lives. Whatever > >good > >> >> >> >> there is in decent life experiences for billions of animals would > >be > >> >> >> >> prevented as well as the cruelty. There would be nothing left but > >> >> >> >> the cruelty involved with CDs. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >There would still be enough kept > >> >> >> >as hobby farm animals. Unless > >> >> >> >some law is passed making raising > >> >> >> >and eating these animals illegal, > >> >> >> >and that's doubtful, then there > >> >> >> >will still be some around. Also, > >> >> >> >don't forget there are wild > >> >> >> >populations of many farmed > >> >> >> >animals. There would be no > >> >> >> >extinctions, just a lessening > >> >> >> >of numbers. The lab meat would > >> >> >> >simply make meat cheaper > >> >> >> >and easier to produce. Also, > >> >> >> >for people who don't want to > >> >> >> >give up meat, but want to reduce > >> >> >> >their cruelty to animals, lab meat > >> >> >> >could help. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >and at the same time allow > >> >> >> >> >meat eaters to still eat meat. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Do you think it would be better if when food animals are > >born, > >> >> >> >> they be put into a comatose conditon so that they never > >experience > >> >> >> >> consciousness and never learn of life or anything else? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >It depends on what kind of life > >> >> >> >they would be facing otherwise. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Sometimes you pretend to care about things like > >> >> >> that, and other times you act like it doesn't matter. > >> >> >> Why can't you be consistent? Either quality of life > >> >> >> does matter, or it doesn't in regards to whether or > >> >> >> not life is worth living. If you're in favor of "AR" you > >> >> >> must feel that it does not matter like Dutch, Goo > >> >> >> and Derek, but that raising animals for food is pure > >> >> >> exploitation and that no farm animals have ever > >> >> >> benefitted from farming. That's the difference > >> >> >> between "AR" and AW. We've been through it > >> >> >> before. You really should decide which you're going > >> >> >> to side with imo. > >> >> > > >> >> >Maybe I don't fit either category > >> >> >as you describe it. I would like to > >> >> >see factory farms gone completely > >> >> >yet I don't want to see any domestic > >> >> >animal go extinct. > >> >> > >> >> AFAIK there are 3 possibilities: > >> >> > >> >> 1. stop raising animals for food. > >> >> 2. raise them but don't worry about quality of life. > >> >> 3. raise them and deliberately provide them with > >> >> decent lives. > >> > > >> >I would choose in the following > >> >order, 1, > >> > >> Then you're in favor or their elimination. > > > >Mostly. I don't want to see any > >extinctions though, just the > >elimination of for-food animals. > > The for-food animals would be extinct. No. There are feral versions of every food animal I can think of. > · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small > variety of animals are raised. The animals in those > habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant > on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also > depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg > that begin their particular existence. Those animals will > only live if people continue to raise them for food. As long as there is no threat of endangerment or extiction, the future unborn don't matter. If it did, then every period I've had is a death of a future person, and every egg is a death of a future chick. > Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild > animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely > different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few > animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals > which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers > for their existence. · The numbers of unborn don't matter. Their lives don't matter until at least the moment they have the benefit of life to begin with. > >> >3, then 2. I still don't > >> >like the idea of killing them for > >> >food, > >> > >> Then you're opposed to them living for food. > > > >Yes. > > > >> >but they could make great > >> >farm pets so as to prevent > >> >extinction. > >> > >> Not if provided a right to freedom. > > > >There are already wild populations > >of most farmed animals. But the > >ones that already exist, are not > >trained from birth to live in the > >wild. > > > >> >Since I doubt by > >> >far that 1. will ever happen, it > >> >looks like 3. wins out. > >> > >> That means life for billions of animals. > > > >Not necessarily good lives. > > > >> >> >I would also like > >> >> >to see cds eliminated, but I can't > >> >> >think of any way to practically do > >> >> >that. > >> >> > >> >> The only way is to eliminate the lives that would > >> >> become cds. If people could prevent life in crop fields > >> >> then there it would be. As I point out, the "AR" concept > >> >> is not about providing rights, it's about preventing life. > >> > > >> >I'm ok with that if the life would > >> >have been a miserable one. > >> > >> How about if it would have been a decent one? > > > >If it's a decent life, then I think > >that people should not kill them > >so young, ending their good > >lives. Ideally I would like to see > >them not killed at all. > > · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive > if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of > reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever > we think about the fact that the animals are going to be > killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part > of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are > experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. · What most experience is a bad life. Without that as a qualifier against the above, I can't agree even in part. In the case of wild life variations in quality, that's a little different. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:41:49 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> The for-food animals would be extinct. > >No. There are feral versions of >every food animal I can think of. It doesn't matter if there are, since they are not for-food animals which is what I was referring to. >> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small >> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those >> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant >> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also >> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg >> that begin their particular existence. Those animals will >> only live if people continue to raise them for food. > >As long as there is no threat of >endangerment or extiction, the >future unborn don't matter. The extinction you keep going on about doesn't have anything to do with whether or not what we're doing is cruel to the animals, and that's what we're supposed to be discussing. The extinction thing you have doesn't matter any more than what your favorite color is, so let's just quit with that. It doesn't matter if animals are prevented unless someone would rather see them provided with decent lives instead. If they do live, that's what matters. >If it >did, then every period I've had >is a death of a future person, and >every egg is a death of a future >chick. > >> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild >> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely >> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few >> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals >> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers >> for their existence. · > >The numbers of unborn don't matter. The ones that are born do matter. Not to you. Not to Goo. But they matter to the animals, and that's what I consider. >Their lives don't matter until at least >the moment they have the benefit of >life to begin with. > >> >> >3, then 2. I still don't >> >> >like the idea of killing them for >> >> >food, >> >> >> >> Then you're opposed to them living for food. >> > >> >Yes. >> > >> >> >but they could make great >> >> >farm pets so as to prevent >> >> >extinction. >> >> >> >> Not if provided a right to freedom. >> > >> >There are already wild populations >> >of most farmed animals. But the >> >ones that already exist, are not >> >trained from birth to live in the >> >wild. >> > >> >> >Since I doubt by >> >> >far that 1. will ever happen, it >> >> >looks like 3. wins out. >> >> >> >> That means life for billions of animals. >> > >> >Not necessarily good lives. >> > >> >> >> >I would also like >> >> >> >to see cds eliminated, but I can't >> >> >> >think of any way to practically do >> >> >> >that. >> >> >> >> >> >> The only way is to eliminate the lives that would >> >> >> become cds. If people could prevent life in crop fields >> >> >> then there it would be. As I point out, the "AR" concept >> >> >> is not about providing rights, it's about preventing life. >> >> > >> >> >I'm ok with that if the life would >> >> >have been a miserable one. >> >> >> >> How about if it would have been a decent one? >> > >> >If it's a decent life, then I think >> >that people should not kill them >> >so young, ending their good >> >lives. Ideally I would like to see >> >them not killed at all. >> >> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive >> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of >> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever >> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be >> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part >> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are >> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. · > >What most experience is a bad >life. Without that as a qualifier >against the above, I can't agree >even in part. In the case of wild >life variations in quality, that's a >little different. It's very different in respect to the fact that we have a lot less control over the condtions. But it still always comes down to the same thing for wildlife as well as domestic animals, and you, and me...quality of life is what determines whether it has a positive or negative value. To me decent lives have a positive value. To you I guess that's not always true, and maybe it's not, but I still feel that it does. So I feel just as good about seeing livestock and wildlife in grazing areas as I do about seeing fields of crops, and often I feel better about it. I feel just as good thinking about a bunch of dairy cows in a warm barn as I do about deer starving and freezing to death someplace...etc...etc...etc... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:41:49 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > > >> The for-food animals would be extinct. > > > >No. There are feral versions of > >every food animal I can think of. > > It doesn't matter if there are, since they are not for-food > animals which is what I was referring to. There are feral pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc. I don't know about sheep and goats. As for their relatives made captive by us, there is no need for us to continue to do that. We don't owe it to any future unborn animals. > >> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small > >> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those > >> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant > >> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also > >> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg > >> that begin their particular existence. Those animals will > >> only live if people continue to raise them for food. > > > >As long as there is no threat of > >endangerment or extiction, the > >future unborn don't matter. > > The extinction you keep going on about doesn't have > anything to do with whether or not what we're doing is > cruel to the animals, and that's what we're supposed to > be discussing. The extinction thing you have doesn't matter > any more than what your favorite color is, so let's just quit > with that. It doesn't matter if animals are prevented unless > someone would rather see them provided with decent lives > instead. If they do live, that's what matters. The extinction factor is important. If there were no wild ones, and captive ones only, then I would say keep them (but in good conditions of course) so they don't go extinct. Otherwise, there's no need to keep raising them. > >If it > >did, then every period I've had > >is a death of a future person, and > >every egg is a death of a future > >chick. > > > >> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild > >> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely > >> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few > >> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals > >> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers > >> for their existence. · > > > >The numbers of unborn don't matter. > > The ones that are born do matter. Not to you. Not to Goo. > But they matter to the animals, and that's what I consider. But you want that cycle to perpetuate, regardless of the conditions. > >Their lives don't matter until at least > >the moment they have the benefit of > >life to begin with. > > > >> >> >3, then 2. I still don't > >> >> >like the idea of killing them for > >> >> >food, > >> >> > >> >> Then you're opposed to them living for food. > >> > > >> >Yes. > >> > > >> >> >but they could make great > >> >> >farm pets so as to prevent > >> >> >extinction. > >> >> > >> >> Not if provided a right to freedom. > >> > > >> >There are already wild populations > >> >of most farmed animals. But the > >> >ones that already exist, are not > >> >trained from birth to live in the > >> >wild. > >> > > >> >> >Since I doubt by > >> >> >far that 1. will ever happen, it > >> >> >looks like 3. wins out. > >> >> > >> >> That means life for billions of animals. > >> > > >> >Not necessarily good lives. > >> > > >> >> >> >I would also like > >> >> >> >to see cds eliminated, but I can't > >> >> >> >think of any way to practically do > >> >> >> >that. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The only way is to eliminate the lives that would > >> >> >> become cds. If people could prevent life in crop fields > >> >> >> then there it would be. As I point out, the "AR" concept > >> >> >> is not about providing rights, it's about preventing life. > >> >> > > >> >> >I'm ok with that if the life would > >> >> >have been a miserable one. > >> >> > >> >> How about if it would have been a decent one? > >> > > >> >If it's a decent life, then I think > >> >that people should not kill them > >> >so young, ending their good > >> >lives. Ideally I would like to see > >> >them not killed at all. > >> > >> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive > >> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of > >> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever > >> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be > >> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part > >> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are > >> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. · > > > >What most experience is a bad > >life. Without that as a qualifier > >against the above, I can't agree > >even in part. In the case of wild > >life variations in quality, that's a > >little different. > > It's very different in respect to the fact that we have a lot > less control over the condtions. But it still always comes down > to the same thing for wildlife as well as domestic animals, and > you, and me...quality of life is what determines whether it has > a positive or negative value. To me decent lives have a > positive value. To you I guess that's not always true, and > maybe it's not, but I still feel that it does. So I feel just as good > about seeing livestock and wildlife in grazing areas as I do > about seeing fields of crops, and often I feel better about it. > I feel just as good thinking about a bunch of dairy cows in a > warm barn as I do about deer starving and freezing to death > someplace...etc...etc...etc... In the wild, provided they weren't brought up in captivity, it is indeed survival of the fittest and not our place to interfere too often. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > <dh@.> wrote > There are feral pigs, chickens, > turkeys, etc. I don't know about > sheep and goats. There are plenty of them. > As for their > relatives made captive by us, > there is no need for us to > continue to do that. There is a desire to continue, that's what matters, need is not the issue. We don't "need" to cultivate rice either, but we have the desire to so, and it's quite lethal to many animals. Raising animals for food, provided decent care is provided, is not more or less deadly, or unethical, than any other form of agriculture. The notion that it is so is a "vegan" myth. > We don't > owe it to any future unborn > animals. Of course not, how absurd. He's an idiot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > <dh@.> wrote > > > There are feral pigs, chickens, > > turkeys, etc. I don't know about > > sheep and goats. > > There are plenty of them. Then no need to intervene to prevent extinction. > > As for their > > relatives made captive by us, > > there is no need for us to > > continue to do that. > > There is a desire to continue, that's what matters, > need is not the issue. We don't "need" to cultivate > rice either, but we have the desire to so, and it's > quite lethal to many animals. Raising animals for > food, provided decent care is provided, is not more > or less deadly, or unethical, than any other form of > agriculture. The notion that it is so is a "vegan" myth. As shown in this newsgroup before, the numbers will still favour the vegan. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > We don't > > owe it to any future unborn > > animals. > > Of course not, how absurd. He's an idiot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > <dh@.> wrote >> >> > There are feral pigs, chickens, >> > turkeys, etc. I don't know about >> > sheep and goats. >> >> There are plenty of them. > > Then no need to intervene to > prevent extinction. Feral animals are almost always damaging to delicate ecosystems that have developed over millions of years, just like transplanted wild animals and birds. They threaten diversity. >> > As for their >> > relatives made captive by us, >> > there is no need for us to >> > continue to do that. >> >> There is a desire to continue, that's what matters, >> need is not the issue. We don't "need" to cultivate >> rice either, but we have the desire to so, and it's >> quite lethal to many animals. Raising animals for >> food, provided decent care is provided, is not more >> or less deadly, or unethical, than any other form of >> agriculture. The notion that it is so is a "vegan" myth. > > As shown in this newsgroup > before, the numbers will still > favour the vegan. Which vegan vs which non-vegan? Your statement is a fallacy of generalization. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > <dh@.> wrote > >> > >> > There are feral pigs, chickens, > >> > turkeys, etc. I don't know about > >> > sheep and goats. > >> > >> There are plenty of them. > > > > Then no need to intervene to > > prevent extinction. > > Feral animals are almost always > damaging to delicate ecosystems > that have developed over millions > of years, just like transplanted wild > animals and birds. They threaten diversity. If their existences were limited to their places of origin and no transplants were kept, then let nature take it's evolved course. > >> > As for their > >> > relatives made captive by us, > >> > there is no need for us to > >> > continue to do that. > >> > >> There is a desire to continue, that's what matters, > >> need is not the issue. We don't "need" to cultivate > >> rice either, but we have the desire to so, and it's > >> quite lethal to many animals. Raising animals for > >> food, provided decent care is provided, is not more > >> or less deadly, or unethical, than any other form of > >> agriculture. The notion that it is so is a "vegan" myth. > > > > As shown in this newsgroup > > before, the numbers will still > > favour the vegan. > > Which vegan vs which non-vegan? > Your statement is a fallacy of > generalization. Do you want their names and menus? Statistics are averages not generalizations. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> >>><dh@.> wrote >> >>>There are feral pigs, chickens, >>>turkeys, etc. I don't know about >>>sheep and goats. >> >>There are plenty of them. > > > Then no need to intervene to > prevent extinction. > > >>>As for their >>>relatives made captive by us, >>>there is no need for us to >>>continue to do that. >> >>There is a desire to continue, that's what matters, >>need is not the issue. We don't "need" to cultivate >>rice either, but we have the desire to so, and it's >>quite lethal to many animals. Raising animals for >>food, provided decent care is provided, is not more >>or less deadly, or unethical, than any other form of >>agriculture. The notion that it is so is a "vegan" myth. > > > As shown in this newsgroup > before, the numbers will still > favour the vegan. The relative numbers are irrelevant, because it isn't a counting game. You do not establish your virtue by doing less of some bad thing than someone else. You must do NONE of it. Sodomizing the child next door only 1/3 as often as your sister does not make you virtuous. As long as the "vegan's" CD numbers are positive, she is a lying hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > >>><dh@.> wrote > >> > >>>There are feral pigs, chickens, > >>>turkeys, etc. I don't know about > >>>sheep and goats. > >> > >>There are plenty of them. > > > > > > Then no need to intervene to > > prevent extinction. > > > > > >>>As for their > >>>relatives made captive by us, > >>>there is no need for us to > >>>continue to do that. > >> > >>There is a desire to continue, that's what matters, > >>need is not the issue. We don't "need" to cultivate > >>rice either, but we have the desire to so, and it's > >>quite lethal to many animals. Raising animals for > >>food, provided decent care is provided, is not more > >>or less deadly, or unethical, than any other form of > >>agriculture. The notion that it is so is a "vegan" myth. > > > > > > As shown in this newsgroup > > before, the numbers will still > > favour the vegan. > > The relative numbers are irrelevant, because it isn't a > counting game. You do not establish your virtue by > doing less of some bad thing than someone else. You > must do NONE of it. Sodomizing the child next door > only 1/3 as often as your sister does not make you > virtuous. Whoa. There you go again with your wanting to discuss the rape of children. I will not discuss that with you. > As long as the "vegan's" CD numbers are positive, she > is a lying hypocrite. If the number of cds are lower than it would have been on her previous meat eating diet, than she can feel good about the harm reduction. She is doing the best she reasonably can. By the way, don't snip the paragraphs that you respond to in this. I am not in the mood to converse that way and I'll probably just ignore you. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Best Burgers 2007. Was: Red Robin Burgers | General Cooking | |||
| Burgers | General Cooking | |||
| Burgers | Barbecue | |||
| Burgers Break Apart - How to grill burgers | Barbecue | |||
Linear Mode
