 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:36:30 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:18:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote >>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 02:47:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>It's your show this week Derek, you're in fine form. >>>> >>>> I always am, liar Ditch. When are you going to explain >>>> why you tried using a sock puppet during this discussion, >>>> and what does the use of this sock puppet say about >>>> your general deceitful participation here on Usenet? >>> >>>LOL >> >> You're not laughing; you've been caught red-handed >> while trying to use a sock puppet during this discussion, >> and that alone shows your desperation and deceit. > >You're looking a little red in the face there fatso. Hardly, since it's you who's been caught red-handed while trying to use a sock puppet during this discussion. >> What made you think you could get away with trying >> to pull a stunt like that, and what does it say about your >> general participation in debates if you need the aide of >> a sock puppet to get you through? You're a joke. > >Always happy to provide some light comic relief. Exactly! You're a joke, not a serious participant in these discussions. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:33:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote <restore> >I don't need aliases to defeat you. It's clear that you used one while trying to. Explain why you needed the help of your sock puppet during this discussion if not as an aide to help you defeat me? It's small wonder why you can never be trusted to discuss these issues seriously; you're just a heckling troll, Dutch. <end restore> >I attack your arguments, that's fair play. Using a sock puppet in an attempt to swarm your opponent isn't fair play, you deluded imbecile. >You're just ****ed because I've got the better of you I'm laughing my arse off, liar Dutch. Just who do you think you're fooling with this charade? >well cry me a ****ing river That wont be necessary. > who's fault is that? Yours, of course. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:06:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On 4 Oct 2005 17:03:56 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:13:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > lied: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[..] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid >>>>>>>>>>form.. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A is like B. >>>>>>>>>>B has property P. >>>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is an obvious fallacy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using >>>>>>>>>analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will >>>>>>>>>find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[Arguments from Analogy: >>>>>>>>>Form: >>>>>>>>>1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects. >>>>>>>>>2. B has property P. >>>>>>>>>So, A has property P.] >>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/7req4 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon >>>>>>>>>is a fallacy; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>A is like B. >>>>>>>>>B has property P. >>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That's fine >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Of course! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P >>>>>>>>is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same >>>>>>>property as human rights: rights, and both propositions >>>>>>>rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral >>>>>>>agents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just a reminder of the analogy in question; >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[snip gibberish] >>>>> >>>>><restore argument - the subject of this debate> >>>>> >>>>>(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>>>> proposition of human rights. >>>> >>>>This is the central assertion you have to prove, and you're not even >>>>trying; you're merely repeatedly asserting it. >>> >>>They are analogous by definition, >> >>No, they're not. > > > Both propositions are analogous You can't get anything right. The *propositions* are not analogous; your proposition is that two *things* are analogous. But they're not. The property that you allege they share in common is the thing you are HOPING TO PROVE by analogy. You just don't understand how analogy works. >>You are asserting they're analogous > > > And they are, They aren't. Stop lying. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:09:56 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Derek lied: >> >>>On 4 Oct 2005 17:03:56 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Derek lied: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 16:06:11 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 4 Oct 2005 14:56:30 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Derek lied: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>You don't hold rights *because* you >>>>can be wronged, >>> >>>Certainly I do. I don't hold them on the basis that I >>>can't be wronged, or abused as the case may be. >> >>You don't hold them on *any* basis of your ability to >>be wronged, you ONLY could have the ability >>to be wronged IF you hold rights. > > > And there we have it, Thank you. You've admitted you had it backward. Stupid. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:11:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: [..] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid >>>>>>>>>>>form.. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>A is like B. >>>>>>>>>>>B has property P. >>>>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It is an obvious fallacy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using >>>>>>>>>>analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will >>>>>>>>>>find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>[Arguments from Analogy: >>>>>>>>>>Form: >>>>>>>>>>1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects. >>>>>>>>>>2. B has property P. >>>>>>>>>>So, A has property P.] >>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/7req4 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon >>>>>>>>>>is a fallacy; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A is like B. >>>>>>>>>>B has property P. >>>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That's fine >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of course! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P >>>>>>>>>is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same >>>>>>>>property as human rights: rights, and both propositions >>>>>>>>rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral >>>>>>>>agents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Just a reminder of the analogy in question; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[snip gibberish] >>>>>> >>>>>><restore argument - the subject of this debate> >>>>>> >>>>>>(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >>>>>> proposition of human rights. >>>>> >>>>>This is the central assertion you have to prove, and you're not even >>>>>trying; you're merely repeatedly asserting it. >>>> >>>>They are analogous by definition, >>> >>>No, they're not. >> >> Both propositions are analogous > >You can't get anything right. The *propositions* are >not analogous; your proposition is that two *things* >are analogous. By propositions I mean the propositions of animal rights and human rights, as in; (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the proposition of human rights. You knew that, of course, but being the heckler you are instead of a reasonable arguer, you tried to feign ignorance to make life as difficult for me as you could. Couple that together with Dutch's two nyms, and it's clear that neither of you are worth wasting my time on. You get the last empty word. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:11:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >Derek lied: > [..] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid > >>>>>>>>>>>form.. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>A is like B. > >>>>>>>>>>>B has property P. > >>>>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>It is an obvious fallacy > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using > >>>>>>>>>>analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will > >>>>>>>>>>find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>[Arguments from Analogy: > >>>>>>>>>>Form: > >>>>>>>>>>1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects. > >>>>>>>>>>2. B has property P. > >>>>>>>>>>So, A has property P.] > >>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/7req4 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon > >>>>>>>>>>is a fallacy; > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>A is like B. > >>>>>>>>>>B has property P. > >>>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>That's fine > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Of course! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P > >>>>>>>>>is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same > >>>>>>>>property as human rights: rights, and both propositions > >>>>>>>>rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral > >>>>>>>>agents. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Just a reminder of the analogy in question; > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>[snip gibberish] > >>>>>> > >>>>>><restore argument - the subject of this debate> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the > >>>>>> proposition of human rights. > >>>>> > >>>>>This is the central assertion you have to prove, and you're not even > >>>>>trying; you're merely repeatedly asserting it. > >>>> > >>>>They are analogous by definition, > >>> > >>>No, they're not. > >> > >> Both propositions are analogous > > > >You can't get anything right. The *propositions* are > >not analogous; your proposition is that two *things* > >are analogous. > > By propositions I mean the propositions of animal > rights and human rights, as in; > (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the > proposition of human rights. Which you haven't shown; merely asserted. You still have yet to show what other properties animals and humans have in common - the basis for the analogy, in other words - such that rights for animals is "like" rights for humans. And don't **** away any more of the time you could be spending at the pub or watching telly that the common property is the ability to be "wronged", because that's getting it backward: an ability to be "wronged" fundamentally DEPENDS on having rights, so it cannot serve as the basis for rights. You stupid lying ****. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 03:33:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > <restore> >>I don't need aliases to defeat you. > > It's clear ....that your argument has been disassembled. The fact that you are either incapable or lack the integrity to acknowledge it is something beyond my control. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote >You get the last empty word. That's the best decision you could make, you're only compounding your problems by repeating the same fallacies over and over. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:57:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > >>You get the last empty word. > >That's the best decision you could make Of course; when faced with a couple of liars while one of them uses a sock puppet, it's best to just break from the discussion and leave all three of you to talk amongst yourselves. How can you honestly sit there and tell me that the proposition of animal rights isn't analogous to human rights while quotes from you in Google archives say exactly that, that they ARE analogous? Look again at your past and recent quotes, liar Ditch; "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh and "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for animals would not exist." Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz and "If they are inherent in humans then why are they not in some way inherent in all animals? I think rights are a human invention which we apply widely to humans and in specific ways in certain situations to other animals." Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must conclude that they hold rights against humans who would abuse them." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp and "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar way as minor children or people in comas. They can hold rights against us, but we can't hold rights against them." Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx What a lying sack of shit your are, liar Ditch. YOU DO believe they are analogous. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Oct 2005 12:26:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:11:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> [..] >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>If you would use your head you would have never used this as a a valid >> >>>>>>>>>>>form.. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>A is like B. >> >>>>>>>>>>>B has property P. >> >>>>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>It is an obvious fallacy >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>No, it is NOT a fallacy. It's the correct form when using >> >>>>>>>>>>analogies. Go to any page concerning them and you will >> >>>>>>>>>>find that the form I've presented is perfectly correct. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>[Arguments from Analogy: >> >>>>>>>>>>Form: >> >>>>>>>>>>1. A is similar to B in certain relevant respects. >> >>>>>>>>>>2. B has property P. >> >>>>>>>>>>So, A has property P.] >> >>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/7req4 >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>Now look again at the form I used and which you reckon >> >>>>>>>>>>is a fallacy; >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>A is like B. >> >>>>>>>>>>B has property P. >> >>>>>>>>>>Therefore, A has property P. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>That's fine >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>Of course! >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>, but the burden of proof is on YOU to show that property P >> >>>>>>>>>is *one of the ways* A is like B. You can't simply assert it. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>Animal rights as proposed has by definition the same >> >>>>>>>>property as human rights: rights, and both propositions >> >>>>>>>>rest on the same basis: an ability to be wronged by moral >> >>>>>>>>agents. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>Just a reminder of the analogy in question; >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>[snip gibberish] >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>><restore argument - the subject of this debate> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>(A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >> >>>>>> proposition of human rights. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>This is the central assertion you have to prove, and you're not even >> >>>>>trying; you're merely repeatedly asserting it. >> >>>> >> >>>>They are analogous by definition, >> >>> >> >>>No, they're not. >> >> >> >> Both propositions are analogous >> > >> >You can't get anything right. The *propositions* are >> >not analogous; your proposition is that two *things* >> >are analogous. >> >> By propositions I mean the propositions of animal >> rights and human rights, as in; >> (A) the proposition of animal rights is like (B) the >> proposition of human rights. > >Which you haven't shown; merely asserted. Both propositions are analogous by definition alone: rights, as well as being analogous in that either can be wronged and abused by moral agents. The onus is now on you to show that they aren't. You wont because you can't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote: > On 1 Oct 2005 08:20:30 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > > > >> On 30 Sep 2005 05:52:07 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >dh@. wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 14:39:53 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >I have been thinking about this discussion a bit more since > >> >> >replying and I have a few more things to say about it. Firstly > >> >> >that it is nice to be able to have a civil conversation, rather > >> >> >than playing insult tennis, for a change so thank you for that, dh= ld. > >> >> > >> >> You're welcome. Thank you. > >> >> > >> >> >If everyone switched to a vegan diet, I believe a lot more > >> >> >land would become available. Some of that would inevitably become > >> >> >buildings and offices, which as you rightly point out, support > >> >> >much less life than cattle grazing areas. Some of it would become > >> >> >gardens, which is probably no bad thing. I reckon some of it would > >> >> >end up being left wild. > >> >> > >> >> I can't get myself to believe that would be something to > >> >> count on, and so can't factor it into my evaluation. > >> > > >> >Why don't you believe it would happen? We only need so many > >> >homes, offices, factories, etc. > >> > >> You exist on Earth but live in your dream world. > > > >How about wood and paper production? Wouldn't cause the land > >to be left wild and wouldn't lead to the best sort of forests > >from nature's point of view but probably still support more life > >than grassland. > > It only happens in a tiny percentage of situations. > It will not > happen on a large enough scale to be significant. If there is more land available, it seems logical to suppose that prouduction of commodities such as wood and paper would increase. > Even if it > did, I'd still be just as in favor of grazing areas and decent lives > for livestock, etc. I believe it's easier to deliberately provide > decent lives and humane deaths for domestic animals, than it > is to do it for wild ones. There is nothing hard about 'providing' decent lives for wild animals. Just leave them alone in their natural habitat and let them get on with it! > >> >> It's like > >> >> the idea of "ARAs" beginning thriving wild populations > >> >> from domestic animals...it's just not going to happen, > >> >> and so it's not something to consider. From my own pov, > >> >> it is absurd for people to consider such ideas that will not > >> >> happen, while they disregard significant things that do > >> >> happen like the lives of billions of animals. > >> >> > >> >> >There would be also be less pressure on > >> >> >the rainforest habitat as demand for soya would drop and demand for > >> >> >beef would cease altogether. > >> >> > >> >> You try to oversimplify the situation imo. Here is some > >> >> basic info about it that is significant to me, and maybe > >> >> it will have some significance for you: > >> >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> >> [...] > >> >> Back in the 1960s, the Bolivian government was encouraging migrants= by > >> >> offering free plots of 30-50 hectares to clear and farm. But he fou= nd that > >> >> whenever he cleared the rainforest, the rain washed the fertility f= rom the soil, > >> >> and within a couple of years the cultivated portion of the plot had= to be > >> >> abandoned, and new areas of forest cleared for planting. He became = yet > >> >> another shifting cultivator in the Amazon rainforest. > >> >> > >> >> "We tried. We worked the land, bit by bit cutting down the forest. = But it > >> >> rained and rained and rained. The mosquitoes were insufferable. We > >> >> experienced terrible suffering," he says. Used to planting maize an= d wheat, > >> >> he had to grow instead rice and cassava. "At the beginning the rice= was > >> >> wonderful, but from then on it never produced the same. Now the only > >> >> thing this land is good for is grass and livestock." > >> >> [...] > >> >> http://www.nri.org/InTheField/bolivia_s_b.htm > >> >> =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=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > >> >> It goes on about more detail, and there's a lot more about slash an= d burn > >> >> available other places if you care to check it out. > >> > > >> >Yes. That is a significant addition to the debate. It shows that just > >> >because > >> >the deforested land is now used to produce beef doesn't mean that > >> >demand for > >> >beef was responsible for the initial deforestation. However, demand f= or > >> >meat still > >> >creates more demand for land than demand for grains or beans do. > >> > >> Not in these cases. He wanted to grow maize and wheat, but later > >> had to settle for rice and cassava, and after that had to settle for g= rass > >> for livestock. They weren't feeding grain to the livestock, if that's = what > >> you're thinking. > > > >No it isn't what I was thinking. I was thinking that per calorie, > >omnivorous > >diets use more land than vegan diets. > > Whatever on that. The greater the demand for land, created amongst other things by our choice of diets, the greater the temptation to destory rainforests in order to increase the land available to us. > The forests are cut down to grow grain, In the examples you cited this is true. > and the cattle are raised after the grain can't be. Yes. > So we can't blame it on beef. But it can be partially blamed on the livestock that are consuming the grain. > >> [...] > >> >> The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should > >> >> Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet. > >> >> > >> >> S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State > >> >> University, Corvallis, OR 97331. > >> >> > >> >> Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the > >> >> European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001, > >> >> pp 440-450. > >> >> > >> >> Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals. > >> [...] > >> > >> >Thank you for posting that. I now see that he doesn't actually > >> >come close to answering the question whether or not GFCs cause > >> >fewer animal deaths than vegetable production or not. > >> > >> You have convinced me that you are entirely clueless, and > >> that you will most likely remain so for the rest of your life. Not > >> at all unusual in these ngs. Here's a clue, but they never seem > >> to grasp it: some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths > >> than some types of vegetables. > > > >Yes. > > That may be a first. Did you see that rick? > > >> Here's another one that you > >> won't grasp and will probably despise: some types of meat > >> provide decent lives for livestock. > > > >The animals used to produce some types of meat do lead decent > >lives > > That may be another first. > > >but it is irrational to treat the lives as provided by > >the farmer for the reasons I have put forward. > > Since the lives--and the quality of the lives now that you > bring it up--are provided by the farmer, there are no "reasons" > you could put forward which could change the fact. The lives are only provided by the farmer in as much as he graciously allows the livestock to use the land he has appropriated for himself and controls which males are allowed to pass their genes onto the next generation. The life of a cow/chicken/sheep/whatever are bought into existence by that animal's parents and this process can happen without human intervention. > >> Read the post on Decision-making and it will help you to > >> understand why you just can't care. "ARAs" make deliberate > >> use of cognitive dissonance, and they probably manipulated > >> you years ago. Now you're stuck...probably for life. Here's > >> something about it specifically from the same discussion > >> group: > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/4334 > >> > >> We all, all over the world, suffer from cognitive dissonance > >> regarding many issues. And no one could argue that it is a good > >> thing. Why then do we say that politicians who change their minds > >> (perhaps with good reason) are "flip-flopping?" Myers points out > >> that we seem to consider it "a sin to change one's mind in light > >> of new information" - But isn't "the greater sin a self-justifying > >> refusal to learn from mistakes?" > > > >I am always willing to reconsider my position when provided with > >new information or angles I have previously failed to consider. > > Maybe. Maybe you just pretend. > > >> I wonder if there are other good examples of cognitive dissonance > >> in world politics that people can think of? And, most of all, I > >> wonder how one can answer to cognitive dissonance in oneself and > >> in others, especially regarding such important matters. > >> > >> posted by jb at 02:19PM UTC > >> =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=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > dh@. wrote: > > > > snips... > > > > > > Not in these cases. He wanted to grow maize and wheat, but > > later > > had to settle for rice and cassava, and after that had to > > settle for grass > > for livestock. They weren't feeding grain to the livestock, if > > that's what > > you're thinking. > > No it isn't what I was thinking. I was thinking that per calorie, > omnivorous > diets use more land than vegan diets. > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D > Really? Tell us about your proof that this is automatically > true. But then again, there is that word you have trouble with, > 'use.' It's quite easy to see an omnivourous diet 'using' less > land that man works, disturbs and causes original habitat > destruction for your veggies. Isn't it that easy for you to see? It is possible for omnivorous diets to be more efficient than vegan ones. Hunting, fishing and even animal farming needn't necessarily cause any significant habitat destruction. In practise they usually do and my quote above is true in general terms. > > [...] > > >> The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should > > >> Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet. > > >> > > >> S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State > > >> University, Corvallis, OR 97331. > > >> > > >> Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the > > >> European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001, > > >> pp 440-450. > > >> > > >> Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field > > >> animals. > > [...] > > > > >Thank you for posting that. I now see that he doesn't actually > > >come close to answering the question whether or not GFCs cause > > >fewer animal deaths than vegetable production or not. > > > > You have convinced me that you are entirely clueless, and > > that you will most likely remain so for the rest of your life. > > Not > > at all unusual in these ngs. Here's a clue, but they never seem > > to grasp it: some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths > > than some types of vegetables. > > Yes. > > > Here's another one that you > > won't grasp and will probably despise: some types of meat > > provide decent lives for livestock. > > The animals used to produce some types of meat do lead decent > lives but it is irrational to treat the lives as provided by > the farmer for the reasons I have put forward. > > > Read the post on Decision-making and it will help you to > > understand why you just can't care. "ARAs" make deliberate > > use of cognitive dissonance, and they probably manipulated > > you years ago. Now you're stuck...probably for life. Here's > > something about it specifically from the same discussion > > group: > > __________________________________________________ _______ > > http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/4334 > > > > We all, all over the world, suffer from cognitive dissonance > > regarding many issues. And no one could argue that it is a good > > thing. Why then do we say that politicians who change their > > minds > > (perhaps with good reason) are "flip-flopping?" Myers points > > out > > that we seem to consider it "a sin to change one's mind in > > light > > of new information" - But isn't "the greater sin a > > self-justifying > > refusal to learn from mistakes?" > > I am always willing to reconsider my position when provided with > new information or angles I have previously failed to consider. > > > > I wonder if there are other good examples of cognitive > > dissonance > > in world politics that people can think of? And, most of all, I > > wonder how one can answer to cognitive dissonance in oneself > > and > > in others, especially regarding such important matters. > > > > posted by jb at 02:19PM UTC > > =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=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote: > On 1 Oct 2005 08:33:16 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 30 Sep 2005 08:46:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> On 30 Sep 2005 06:15:12 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 15:16:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> >> >pearl wrote: > >> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > >> >> >> >> <..> > >> >> >> >> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat > >> >> >> >> >> from animals that died naturally. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Strictly prohibited. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous > >> >> >> >application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens > >> >> >> >distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not > >> >> >> >illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat > >> >> >> >from animals that died naturally or accidently. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And that is true, and something which I've been telling > >> >> >> you all along. If meat could be sourced from animals > >> >> >> that had been raised in ideal, bucolic settings with ideal > >> >> >> veterinarian care, I can't see any valid objection to eating > >> >> >> that meat if the animals died from natural causes or were > >> >> >> killed in road incidents, as sometimes happens. > >> >> > > >> >> >The point is that > >> >> > >> >> The point here is that you don't know what you're talking > >> >> about concerning Aristotle's distinction, > >> > > >> >I have repeatedly demonstrated that I do. A per-se property > >> >of a product is one that is absolutely necessary for that > >> >product to exist. Anything else is a per-accidens property. > >> >Using this definition, I showed that the slaughter of animals > >> >was a per-accidens property of meat. > >> > >> Rather, that's what I've been saying all along, but > >> not where farmed meat is concerned because the > >> deaths associated with it are always absolutely > >> necessary for that meat to exist. > > > >Only if you chose to hide behind a legal technicality. > > No. Yes. > >BTW, are you saying that any killing associated with > >game meat is per-accidens? > > You see; you still don't get it, but that doesn't stop you > from misrepresenting my position whenever you can, > does it? Don't dodge the question: Are you saying that any killing associated with game mear is per-accidens? > >> >> and are ready to > >> >> lie about your opponent to win your assertions. > >> > > >> >In sharp contrast to the staggering example of dishonesty, > >> >you indulge in next paragraph, I have never lied about you. > >> > >> You have intentionally misrepresented my position > >> by claiming my "logic says that, in this society, it is > >> unethical to eat any sort of meat, even game or > >> humanely farmed meat" ; you lied about me. > > > >I am sorry for not being more specific. > > Your lie was very specific. > > >Your logic syas that, > >in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort of meat that > >can be purchased over the counter, even game or humanely farmed > >meat. > > Wrong again. Where have I described humanely farmed > meat and how to get it over the counter in a country > where road kill and meat sourced from animals that died > from natural causes is strictly forbidden? If I have misrepresented you please feel free to correct me. Do you consider it unethical to buy humanely farmed meat from an English or American butchers or farm shop? > >> >> For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's > >> >> logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort > >> >> of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died > >> >> accidentally or of natural causes" > >> > > >> >Here is that quote in full: > >> > > >> >"Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to > >> >eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat, > >> > >> That misrepresents my position, as you well know > >> from what I wrote earlier; > >> > >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food > >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural > >> causes..." > >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm > > Can you see where my quote belies your claim about > my position regarding road kill and animals that have > died from natural causes, or are you going to ignore it? I can see that I carelessly left out an important clause which I apologise for. You believe it is unethical to eat any sort of farmed meat that can be purchased over the counter, even if the welfare conditions under which the animal is raised are excellent. > >> >but > >> >in an alternative society where the laws allowed the selling > >> >of meat from animals that died accidentally or of natural causes, > >> >it would be prefectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter how badly > >> >the animals it came from were treated." > >> > >> That too is a total misrepresentation of my position. > > > >That is the conclusion of your logic. > > It is YOUR false conclusion of my logic based on > YOUR intentional misrepresentation of my position. Your reason for making an ethcial distinction between the purchase of conventionally grown vegetables and farmed meat that can legally be purchased over the counter is that the animal deaths associated with one are per-accidens while the deaths associated with the other are per-se. If farmed meat that had died of natural causes could legally be purchased over the counter than any death and suffering caused by that product would become a per-accidens property of that product. > >You have previously claimed > >that consumption of plantation sugar in the days of slavery was > >in essence perfectly ethcial because the human suffering and death > >associated with the product was per-accidens. > > If that was anywhere near the truth you would've > provided my quote where I made such a claim. > Once again you have totally misrepresented my > position intentionally. Here (below) is the exact > comment I made to yours regarding sugar; > > [start you (as Pesco-vegan)] > >If you consumed plantation sugar in the days of > >slavery, would you be responsible for supporting > >the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, "in > >essence" nature of the sugar? > [me] > Neither. > [end] > Derek Sep 6 http://tinyurl.com/bf6jr > > One day you'll hopefully learn not to misrepresent > your opponent, but until that time you'll remain the > time-waster that you are. I replied: >"So, if our historical consumer of plantation sugar >was not responsible for supporting the slave trade >then it follows that the modern day omnivore is not >responsible for supporting the meat industry." You wrote: "No, because the deaths associated with the meat industry are per se while the deaths associated with sugar are per accidens. You clearly haven't grasped any of this at all." The conclusion is clear. > > >> >Why did you snip the middle part of that quote? > >> > >> Because it and the first part of your quote totally > >> misrepresent my position. I do not believe that > >> it's "perfectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter > >> how badly the animals it came from were treated." > > > >In that case, why did you not challenge my alledged > >misrepresentation of your position at the time > >instead of editing what I wrote to completely alter its > >meaning? > > The meaning of it was not altered by my removing it. > Both parts of your quote misrepresent my position. The meaning of the quote was completely altered by your removal of the middle part of that quote. > >> >> But that's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that, > >> >> > >> >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food > >> >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural > >> >> causes..." > >> >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm > >> >> > >> >> Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan? > >> > > >> >I haven't forgotten the above. > >> > >> Then you should not have lied about my position. > > > >I have not lied about it. > > You most certainly have, Pesco-vegan. No. I haven't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 6 Oct 2005 10:00:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 1 Oct 2005 08:33:16 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2005 08:46:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >Derek wrote: [..] >> >> >> For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's >> >> >> logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort >> >> >> of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died >> >> >> accidentally or of natural causes" >> >> > >> >> >Here is that quote in full: >> >> > >> >> >"Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to >> >> >eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat, >> >> >> >> That misrepresents my position, as you well know >> >> from what I wrote earlier; >> >> >> >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food >> >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural >> >> causes..." >> >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm >> >> Can you see where my quote belies your claim about >> my position regarding road kill and animals that have >> died from natural causes, or are you going to ignore it? > >I can see that I carelessly left out an important clause which >I apologise for. Then I am also correct in saying (below) that, "It is YOUR false conclusion of my logic based on YOUR intentional misrepresentation of my position." >> >That is the conclusion of your logic. >> >> It is YOUR false conclusion of my logic based on >> YOUR intentional misrepresentation of my position. > >Your reason No, YOUR reason based upon YOUR intentional misrepresentation of my position. As you say, you "carelessly left out an important clause". [..] >> >> >> But that's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that, >> >> >> >> >> >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food >> >> >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural >> >> >> causes..." >> >> >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm >> >> >> >> >> >> Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan? >> >> > >> >> >I haven't forgotten the above. >> >> >> >> Then you should not have lied about my position. >> > >> >I have not lied about it. >> >> You most certainly have, Pesco-vegan. > >No. I haven't. You've just admitted that "I can see that I carelessly left out an important clause which I apologise for." That IS lying about my position, Pesco-vegan, and I don't believe for one moment that it was anything to do with carelessness. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
right on cue, and as predictably as night follows day,
Dreck lied: > On 6 Oct 2005 10:00:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >>right on cue, and as predictably as night follows day, Dreck lied: >> >>>On 1 Oct 2005 08:33:16 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>> >>>>right on cue, and as predictably as night follows day, Dreck lied: >>>> >>>>>On 30 Sep 2005 08:46:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>right on cue, and as predictably as night follows day, Dreck lied: > > [..] > >>>>>>>For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's >>>>>>>logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort >>>>>>>of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died >>>>>>>accidentally or of natural causes" >>>>>> >>>>>>Here is that quote in full: >>>>>> >>>>>>"Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to >>>>>>eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat, >>>>> >>>>>That misrepresents my position, as you well know >>>>>from what I wrote earlier; >>>>> >>>>> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food >>>>> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural >>>>> causes..." >>>>> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm >>> >>>Can you see where my quote belies your claim about >>>my position regarding road kill and animals that have >>>died from natural causes, or are you going to ignore it? >> >>I can see that I carelessly left out an important clause which >>I apologise for. > > > Then I am also correct in saying (below) that, "It is YOUR > false conclusion of my logic based on YOUR intentional > misrepresentation of my position." No, because it wasn't intentional. He UNINTENTIONALLY omitted something. You're a waste. You could be up in Yorkshire having a couple dozen pints with Ray Slater right now, and instead you're ****ing away the hours in usenet, saying nothing at all. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:28:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
[..] >You're a waste. You could be up in Yorkshire having a >couple dozen pints with Ray Slater right now, and >instead you're ****ing away the hours in usenet, saying >nothing at all. It's the "English way", Jon. Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day You fritter and waste the hours in an off hand way Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town Waiting for someone or something to show you the way Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today And then one day you find ten years have got behind you No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but its sinking And racing around to come up behind you again The sun is the same in the relative way, but youre older Shorter of breath and one day closer to death Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines *Hanging on in quiet desperation is the english way The time is gone, the song is over, thought Id something more to say* Time - Pink Floyd |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:28:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > [..] > >>You're a waste. You could be up in Yorkshire having a >>couple dozen pints with Ray Slater right now, and >>instead you're ****ing away the hours in usenet, saying >>nothing at all. > > > It's the "English way", Jon. I was about to say, "Isn't that a line from a Pink Floyd song?", and then I see the confirmation below. Is Slater still alive? He was over 60 years of age and a heavy boozer, so I have to wonder. > > Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day > You fritter and waste the hours in an off hand way > Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town > Waiting for someone or something to show you the way > > Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain > You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today > And then one day you find ten years have got behind you > No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun > > And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but its sinking > And racing around to come up behind you again > The sun is the same in the relative way, but youre older > Shorter of breath and one day closer to death > > Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time > Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines > > *Hanging on in quiet desperation is the english way > The time is gone, the song is over, thought Id something more to say* > > Time - Pink Floyd > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:54:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:28:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> [..] >> >>>You're a waste. You could be up in Yorkshire having a >>>couple dozen pints with Ray Slater right now, and >>>instead you're ****ing away the hours in usenet, saying >>>nothing at all. >> >> It's the "English way", Jon. > >I was about to say, "Isn't that a line from a Pink >Floyd song?", and then I saw the confirmation below. > >Is Slater still alive? He was over 60 years of age and >a heavy boozer, so I have to wonder. Don't forget that he had a dodgy heart as well. I had his BTopenworld account taken from him last March, and while he struggled along with Tiscali for a while I was told that even that would be taken from him, but I didn't receive any conformation from them. My guess is that he's been dead for quite a while now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:54:15 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:28:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> [..] > >> > >>>You're a waste. You could be up in Yorkshire having a > >>>couple dozen pints with Ray Slater right now, and > >>>instead you're ****ing away the hours in usenet, saying > >>>nothing at all. > >> > >> It's the "English way", Jon. > > > >I was about to say, "Isn't that a line from a Pink > >Floyd song?", and then I saw the confirmation below. > > > >Is Slater still alive? He was over 60 years of age and > >a heavy boozer, so I have to wonder. > > Don't forget that he had a dodgy heart as well. I had his > BTopenworld account taken from him last March, and > while he struggled along with Tiscali for a while I was > told that even that would be taken from him, but I didn't > receive any conformation from them. My guess is that > he's been dead for quite a while now. That's another aspect to the "English Way" that Pink Floyd didn't address: the wildly extravagant claims about getting people "kicked off" their ISP. I suppose it has happened, somewhere and some time, but in my experience, the worst that happens is the ISP writes a polite note to the user telling them what the policies are, and warning them not to violate the policies again. I seem to recall I got one such warning from Earthlink, but I don't remember what it was for; I think it was for using " as the domain part of my posting address, and the real " webmaster got ****y about it. I know what it *wasn't* for, and that's anything Dump Slater might have whined and moaned about to them. I think that's actually pretty bad to try to get someone's account yanked merely because the complainer has taken offense at something the other guy said. Raymond never seemed to figure out that, at least in the U.S., being offensive and nasty is *not* a violation of an ISP's terms of service. The things that will get one kicked out of an ISP like Earthlink are incitement to *specific* criminal behavior, violation of civil laws against defamation (libel), and violation of the ISP's policies about the type of material that may be posted to specific groups. I know I wrote to a couple of the ISPs Raymond used to complain about his posting of binary files (.jpg, .gif, etc.) to a.a.e.v. and t.p.a., which are text-only groups by charter, but the intent was not to get him kicked off; I just wanted them to hassle him a bit and tell him to stop. I do know that I enjoyed imagining Raymond turning purple with rage over things I said for which he *wanted* to try to get Earthlink to cancel my account. I also got absolutely *huge* amusement out of Lesley threatening to sue me for libel, simply because I had said nasty but *not* libelous things about her. She suddenly let the topic drop altogether after my last "haven't heard from your solly yet..." whack at her; I'm wondering if she perhaps did contact some bottom-feeding solicitor, who told her "You ****ing ****! You don't post under your real name, so no one knows who you are; *and* nothing he's written was libelous, just nasty." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > dh@. wrote: > > > > snips... > > > > > > Not in these cases. He wanted to grow maize and wheat, > > but > > later > > had to settle for rice and cassava, and after that had to > > settle for grass > > for livestock. They weren't feeding grain to the livestock, > > if > > that's what > > you're thinking. > > No it isn't what I was thinking. I was thinking that per > calorie, > omnivorous > diets use more land than vegan diets. > ========================= > Really? Tell us about your proof that this is automatically > true. But then again, there is that word you have trouble > with, > 'use.' It's quite easy to see an omnivourous diet 'using' less > land that man works, disturbs and causes original habitat > destruction for your veggies. Isn't it that easy for you to > see? It is possible for omnivorous diets to be more efficient than vegan ones. Hunting, fishing and even animal farming needn't necessarily cause any significant habitat destruction. In practise they usually do and my quote above is true in general terms. ================== OK thanks, but that isn't what you said above, now was it? snip... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > What a lying sack of shit your are, liar Ditch. YOU DO > believe they are analogous. What I believe is immaterial, that fact is that your feeble attempt at using "logical syllogisms" to prove it are an exercise in pretention and stupidity. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote: > On 6 Oct 2005 10:00:18 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 1 Oct 2005 08:33:16 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> On 30 Sep 2005 08:46:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek wrote: > [..] The snippage of passages you presumably found too awkward to reply to has been noted. > >> >> >> For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's > >> >> >> logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort > >> >> >> of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died > >> >> >> accidentally or of natural causes" > >> >> > > >> >> >Here is that quote in full: > >> >> > > >> >> >"Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to > >> >> >eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat, > >> >> > >> >> That misrepresents my position, as you well know > >> >> from what I wrote earlier; > >> >> > >> >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food > >> >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural > >> >> causes..." > >> >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm > >> > >> Can you see where my quote belies your claim about > >> my position regarding road kill and animals that have > >> died from natural causes, or are you going to ignore it? > > > >I can see that I carelessly left out an important clause which > >I apologise for. > > Then I am also correct in saying (below) that, "It is YOUR > false conclusion of my logic based on YOUR intentional > misrepresentation of my position." No. There was nothing intentional about my leaving out that clause. Your underhand snippage has been noted. I shall reinsert the relevant passage. > >> >but > >> >in an alternative society where the laws allowed the selling > >> >of meat from animals that died accidentally or of natural causes, > >> >it would be prefectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter how badly > >> >the animals it came from were treated." > >> That too is a total misrepresentation of my position. > >> >That is the conclusion of your logic. > >> > >> It is YOUR false conclusion of my logic based on > >> YOUR intentional misrepresentation of my position. > > > >Your reason > > No, YOUR reason based upon YOUR intentional > misrepresentation of my position. As you say, you > "carelessly left out an important clause". > [..] No. The clause I carelessly left out has no relevance to the above. It is an inescapable conclusion of your particular way of 'applying' the per-se versus per-accidens distinction to the discussion of vegetarian ethics. > >> >> >> But that's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food > >> >> >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural > >> >> >> causes..." > >> >> >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan? > >> >> > > >> >> >I haven't forgotten the above. > >> >> > >> >> Then you should not have lied about my position. > >> > > >> >I have not lied about it. > >> > >> You most certainly have, Pesco-vegan. > > > >No. I haven't. > > You've just admitted that "I can see that I carelessly left > out an important clause which I apologise for." That IS > lying about my position, No lying is an intentional act. >Pesco-vegan, and I don't believe > for one moment that it was anything to do with carelessness. You believe what you like but ask yourself this: why would I undermine my credibility with a deliberate misrepresentation of your position when I have you on the ropes. The fact that I have you on the ropes can be seen from the way you evaded all the pertinent points I made in the previous post and instead attempted to make a mountain out of a molehill. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >[...] > >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. >>>>> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> I am. You >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the >>>>>> animals to say that. >>>>> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with >>>>>ourselves. >>>> >>>> Of course I don't believe you. >>> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. > >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the point of >this? Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW? Answer: You would not. Period. So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination. So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals, and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen. Since you really have no opposition to it, you amusingly make up things about moral browny points, which you're obviously scared of losing if you ever break down and consider the animals themselves. You would shame yourself as an eliminationist if you allowed youself to give a fraction of a shit about any farm animals' lives. >>>Pretty >>>pointless, don't you think? >> ><snip> > >>>I just don't "regard" their lives >> >> No, you sure don't. > >Of course not, We are in agreement. Damn. >"regarding" with no object is meaningless. > >>>to be a >>>moral bonus >> >> You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. > >I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant, NOT the >fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance. To you, because you are incapable of considering the animals' lives as we have agreed. That gives me reason to disrespect you, not think more highly of you. Just as you disrespect me for giving consideration to the animals themselves, I disrespect you for being unable to do so, and of course much more so for opposing the idea that people who can make a habit of doing so. >That's the Logic of the Larder, You are the Logic of the Eliminationist Talking Pig. >and it's false argument. LOL. You are Charlotte's Web. You are Chicken Run. You are Grotesque Child Sex Slave Pigs. You are against reality, but are quick to pull any sort of grotesque fantasy out of your ass at any time. >> Remember >> I told you that you can't consider their lives, but only YOURSELF? > >Yet I just told you that I *do* consider their lives. No you liar. You said that you do NOT!: "NOT the fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance." >Again, you're >pummeling a strawman. Actually, that is a different lie, but another lie just the same. You even explained that all you give a shit about is the moral browny points you think YOU get for considering the way they are raised. You can't care about them. You can't give the slightest consideration as to whether they enjoy their lives or not. As we have agreed. LOL... we have agreed, but you still can't understand. The same is true of the way they are raised determining whether or not life has a positive value for them...since you can't give a shit about that aspect of it, you must have copied it from somewhere? Where did you find it? I'd like to read more of what that person has to say about it. >> You just proved it again. You are so worried about losing whatever >> imaginary moral bonus points you feel you have gained somehow, > >I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", They are all you can care about. >I'm telling you that none >exist. Your position, The Logic of the Larder, says that humans can argue >that raising animals for food is a "good thing" (a moral bonus) That's all you can care about. >because all >these animals "get to experience life". That idea must be discarded as >corrupt. > >> that you can't consider anything else. LOL...you are so purely >> selfish it's *incredible*! > >Do you understand what the term moral significance means? To you it means some sort of imaginary moral brownie points for YOU. It's all you care about. To me in this case it means: what positive or negative influence does it have for THE ANIMALS. >It means how what >we do and how we think reflects upon YOU >us as moral beings. It means are we doing good or right, You mean "are YOU getting enough moral brownie points >or are we doing bad, or wrong. Morality and ethics >*are* about YOUr moral brownie points >us, not the animals. LOL! You disgusting selfish asshole! No wonder we disgust each other. We agree that YOU only care about YOU without being able to give any consideration whatsoever to the animals. That is completely the opposite of how I feel about it. I feel that we should DISREGARD our own selfish interest when considering whether or not something is cruel TO THE ANIMALS. I feel that we should? No, I KNOW that we must in order to actually do it. You never will, and in fact will never even understand. How sad. >That's not being "selfish", It is being purely selfish, and it is the complete opposite of considering whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS. You're just too incredibly selfish to understand why. >it's what we're >talking about. Moral browny points for YOU are all you can think about. We agree on that. But I am the complete opposite on that, so it's not what "we're" talking about. It's all that YOU can even think about...that's where you're getting bewildered. I can think about MY interests too, but I'm also aware that they are totally different than those of the animals and I can also consider THEIRS, which you can not. Since you can't do it at all, there's no way you could be aware of any distinction between YOUR interests...LOL...and those of the animals. It's pathetically funny, but God damn it's disgusting Dutch. According to your formula, if a person who doesn't eat eggs buys cage free eggs and gives them away, just to encourage decent lives for laying hens, they are being shameful for deliberately contributing to decent lives for the hens. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote: > If you're suggesting that animals don't hold inalienable rights > unless someone proves it, then the same argument must be > equally valid to conclude you don't rights either. Try again. I have been away in business for a week. Tell you what, ALL *ideas* to be debated, MUST have at least some link to some THING in reality, *sensory reality*, otherwise, all you and I would be arguing over is, YOUR imagination, (which is hardly a worthy way to spend time, unless of course you are another christain mystic, socialist, tribalist etal and or are keen to *invent* - un-natural laws - to control individual human beings, rather than upholding *natural laws* to - protect human beings - from other anti human pro animal evil human beings, who are trying to control them) sooo if you can explain to a mouse or a Zebra, as you can to a human, why and how its rights, not to be a play thing for a cat/lion prior to being eaten by that cat/lion, work, ie explain to the cat and Zebra WHO and HOW their *rights* can be upheld, then I may consider you have more than a very weird *imaginary idea*, to talk about, hence why I said *prove it.* Try again. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote >>> You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. >> >>I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant, NOT >>the >>fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance. > > To you, because you are incapable of considering the animals' > lives as we have agreed. I told you, I consider their lives, I just don't consider that their lives are a moral bonus for consumers. It's a corrupt argument. [..] >>Yet I just told you that I *do* consider their lives. > > No you liar. You said that you do NOT!: "NOT the fact that they > "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance." That's right, it has no moral significance, apart from concern for their welfare. >>Again, you're >>pummeling a strawman. [..] >>I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", > > They are all you can care about. Your "consideration" is a silly grab for moral brownie points, that's all it is. [..] >>Do you understand what the term moral significance means? > > To you it means some sort of imaginary moral brownie points for YOU. > It's all you care about. I didn't think so. [..] > According to your formula, if a person who doesn't eat eggs buys > cage free eggs and gives them away, just to encourage decent lives > for laying hens, they are being shameful for deliberately contributing > to decent lives for the hens. Someone who gives away food is being charitable. The fact they are promoting the lives of birds in the egg industry has no moral relevance whatsoever, that's The Logic of the Larder. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote: > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > ><dh@.> wrote > >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > >[...] > > > >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about > >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. > >>>>> > >>>>>Nope, that's wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>>> I am. You > >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the > >>>>>> animals to say that. > >>>>> > >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with > >>>>>ourselves. > >>>> > >>>> Of course I don't believe you. > >>> > >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? > >> > >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. > > > >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the point of > >this? > > Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious > dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing > to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW? > Answer: You would not. Period. > So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent > AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination. > So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals, > and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen. My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals we raise for food to lead decent lives. > Since you really have no opposition to it, you amusingly make up > things about moral browny points, which you're obviously scared of > losing if you ever break down and consider the animals themselves. > You would shame yourself as an eliminationist if you allowed youself > to give a fraction of a shit about any farm animals' lives. > > >>>Pretty > >>>pointless, don't you think? > >> > ><snip> > > > >>>I just don't "regard" their lives > >> > >> No, you sure don't. > > > >Of course not, > > We are in agreement. Damn. > > >"regarding" with no object is meaningless. > > > >>>to be a > >>>moral bonus > >> > >> You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. > > > >I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant, NOT the > >fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance. > > To you, because you are incapable of considering the animals' > lives as we have agreed. That gives me reason to disrespect you, > not think more highly of you. Just as you disrespect me for giving > consideration to the animals themselves, I disrespect you for being > unable to do so, and of course much more so for opposing the idea > that people who can make a habit of doing so. > > >That's the Logic of the Larder, > > You are the Logic of the Eliminationist Talking Pig. > > >and it's false argument. > > LOL. You are Charlotte's Web. You are Chicken Run. You are > Grotesque Child Sex Slave Pigs. I admit I have not read all your exchanges but I don't believe you ever satisfcatorily answered Dutch's point about Child sex slaves. > You are against reality, but are > quick to pull any sort of grotesque fantasy out of your ass at any time. > > >> Remember > >> I told you that you can't consider their lives, but only YOURSELF? > > > >Yet I just told you that I *do* consider their lives. > > No you liar. You said that you do NOT!: "NOT the fact that they > "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance." > > >Again, you're > >pummeling a strawman. > > Actually, that is a different lie, but another lie just the same. You > even explained that all you give a shit about is the moral browny > points you think YOU get for considering the way they are raised. > You can't care about them. You can't give the slightest consideration > as to whether they enjoy their lives or not. As we have agreed. LOL... > we have agreed, but you still can't understand. The same is true of > the way they are raised determining whether or not life has a positive > value for them...since you can't give a shit about that aspect of it, > you must have copied it from somewhere? Where did you find it? > I'd like to read more of what that person has to say about it. > > >> You just proved it again. You are so worried about losing whatever > >> imaginary moral bonus points you feel you have gained somehow, > > > >I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", > > They are all you can care about. > > >I'm telling you that none > >exist. Your position, The Logic of the Larder, says that humans can argue > >that raising animals for food is a "good thing" (a moral bonus) > > That's all you can care about. > > >because all > >these animals "get to experience life". That idea must be discarded as > >corrupt. > > > >> that you can't consider anything else. LOL...you are so purely > >> selfish it's *incredible*! > > > >Do you understand what the term moral significance means? > > To you it means some sort of imaginary moral brownie points for YOU. > It's all you care about. > > To me in this case it means: what positive or negative influence does > it have for THE ANIMALS. > > >It means how what > >we do and how we think reflects upon > > YOU > > >us as moral beings. It means are we doing good or right, > > You mean "are YOU getting enough moral brownie points > > >or are we doing bad, or wrong. Morality and ethics > >*are* about > > YOUr moral brownie points > > >us, not the animals. > > LOL! You disgusting selfish asshole! No wonder we disgust each > other. We agree that YOU only care about YOU without being able > to give any consideration whatsoever to the animals. That is completely > the opposite of how I feel about it. > > I feel that we should DISREGARD our own selfish interest when > considering whether or not something is cruel TO THE ANIMALS. > I feel that we should? No, I KNOW that we must in order to actually > do it. You never will, and in fact will never even understand. How sad. > > >That's not being "selfish", > > It is being purely selfish, and it is the complete opposite of considering > whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS. You're just too incredibly > selfish to understand why. > > >it's what we're > >talking about. > > Moral browny points for YOU are all you can think about. We agree > on that. But I am the complete opposite on that, so it's not what > "we're" talking about. It's all that YOU can even think about...that's > where you're getting bewildered. I can think about MY interests too, > but I'm also aware that they are totally different than those of the > animals and I can also consider THEIRS, which you can not. Since > you can't do it at all, there's no way you could be aware of any > distinction between YOUR interests...LOL...and those of the animals. > It's pathetically funny, but God damn it's disgusting Dutch. > > According to your formula, if a person who doesn't eat eggs buys > cage free eggs and gives them away, just to encourage decent lives > for laying hens, they are being shameful for deliberately contributing > to decent lives for the hens. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:56:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote >> According to your formula, if a person who doesn't eat eggs buys >> cage free eggs and gives them away, just to encourage decent lives >> for laying hens, they are being shameful for deliberately contributing >> to decent lives for the hens. > >Someone who gives away food is being charitable. The fact they are promoting >the lives of birds in the egg industry has no moral relevance whatsoever, When and how did it stop being shameful? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: > >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> ><dh@.> wrote >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> > >> >[...] >> > >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> I am. You >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the >> >>>>>> animals to say that. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with >> >>>>>ourselves. >> >>>> >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you. >> >>> >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? >> >> >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. >> > >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the point of >> >this? >> >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW? >> Answer: You would not. Period. >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination. >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals, >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen. > >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals >we raise for food to lead decent lives. Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of animals raised for food. You probably are too. If people consider the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming, the elimination objective, i.e. "AR", would no longer be considered the most ethical approach, and veganism would be viewed with much less respect. >> Since you really have no opposition to it, you amusingly make up >> things about moral browny points, which you're obviously scared of >> losing if you ever break down and consider the animals themselves. >> You would shame yourself as an eliminationist if you allowed youself >> to give a fraction of a shit about any farm animals' lives. >> >> >>>Pretty >> >>>pointless, don't you think? >> >> >> ><snip> >> > >> >>>I just don't "regard" their lives >> >> >> >> No, you sure don't. >> > >> >Of course not, >> >> We are in agreement. Damn. >> >> >"regarding" with no object is meaningless. >> > >> >>>to be a >> >>>moral bonus >> >> >> >> You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. >> > >> >I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant, NOT the >> >fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance. >> >> To you, because you are incapable of considering the animals' >> lives as we have agreed. That gives me reason to disrespect you, >> not think more highly of you. Just as you disrespect me for giving >> consideration to the animals themselves, I disrespect you for being >> unable to do so, and of course much more so for opposing the idea >> that people who can make a habit of doing so. >> >> >That's the Logic of the Larder, >> >> You are the Logic of the Eliminationist Talking Pig. >> >> >and it's false argument. >> >> LOL. You are Charlotte's Web. You are Chicken Run. You are >> Grotesque Child Sex Slave Pigs. > >I admit I have not read all your exchanges Here's a sample: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700 Message-ID: > Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >but I don't believe you >ever satisfcatorily answered Dutch's point about Child sex slaves. Then why don't you provide a good reason why we should think of raising children as sex slaves and raising animals for food in the same way? Dutch insists that we should, but he certainly has never come close to giving a any reason why we should. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:56:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote > >>> According to your formula, if a person who doesn't eat eggs buys >>> cage free eggs and gives them away, just to encourage decent lives >>> for laying hens, they are being shameful for deliberately contributing >>> to decent lives for the hens. >> >>Someone who gives away food is being charitable. The fact they are >>promoting >>the lives of birds in the egg industry has no moral relevance whatsoever, > > When and how did it stop being shameful? It never was shameful, it was always morally irrelevant. The shame is in trying to take this "promoting life" concept and applying it as an anti-AR ploy, in a shabby sophistic attempt to make animal farming and meat consumption appear more morally acceptable. Such sophistry is shameful, not the fact that animals experience life. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote: > On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> ><dh@.> wrote > >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > > >> >[...] > >> > > >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about > >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> I am. You > >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and= the > >> >>>>>> animals to say that. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with > >> >>>>>ourselves. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you. > >> >>> > >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? > >> >> > >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. > >> > > >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the p= oint of > >> >this? > >> > >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious > >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing > >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW? > >> Answer: You would not. Period. > >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent > >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=3DElimination. > >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals, > >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen. > > > >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals > >we raise for food to lead decent lives. > > Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people > deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead > of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because > he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s) > could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of > animals raised for food. Both these statements are false. Dutch can correct me if I am wrong. > You probably are too. If people consider > the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming, the elimination > objective, i.e. "AR", would no longer be considered the most > ethical approach, and veganism would be viewed with much > less respect. > > >> Since you really have no opposition to it, you amusingly make up > >> things about moral browny points, which you're obviously scared of > >> losing if you ever break down and consider the animals themselves. > >> You would shame yourself as an eliminationist if you allowed youself > >> to give a fraction of a shit about any farm animals' lives. > >> > >> >>>Pretty > >> >>>pointless, don't you think? > >> >> > >> ><snip> > >> > > >> >>>I just don't "regard" their lives > >> >> > >> >> No, you sure don't. > >> > > >> >Of course not, > >> > >> We are in agreement. Damn. > >> > >> >"regarding" with no object is meaningless. > >> > > >> >>>to be a > >> >>>moral bonus > >> >> > >> >> You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. > >> > > >> >I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant, N= OT the > >> >fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral significanc= e=2E > >> > >> To you, because you are incapable of considering the animals' > >> lives as we have agreed. That gives me reason to disrespect you, > >> not think more highly of you. Just as you disrespect me for giving > >> consideration to the animals themselves, I disrespect you for being > >> unable to do so, and of course much more so for opposing the idea > >> that people who can make a habit of doing so. > >> > >> >That's the Logic of the Larder, > >> > >> You are the Logic of the Eliminationist Talking Pig. > >> > >> >and it's false argument. > >> > >> LOL. You are Charlotte's Web. You are Chicken Run. You are > >> Grotesque Child Sex Slave Pigs. > > > >I admit I have not read all your exchanges > > Here's a sample: > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: "Dutch" > > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700 > Message-ID: > > > Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous = to > taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. > =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=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > >but I don't believe you > >ever satisfcatorily answered Dutch's point about Child sex slaves. > > Then why don't you provide a good reason why we should think > of raising children as sex slaves and raising animals for food in the > same way? "Since my daughter would not have existed if I hadn't given birth to her, it would be a distortion of reality not to take this fact into account." > Dutch insists that we should, but he certainly has never > come close to giving a any reason why we should. Neither me nor Dutch have been arguing that we should think of raising children as sex-slaves in the same way as raising livestock for food. All he has done is point out that the logic of the larder can justify selling your children onto the streets. Eg: "Since my daughter would not have existed if I hadn't given birth to her, it would be a distortion of reality not to take this fact into account." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 15:57:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:56:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>><dh@.> wrote >> >>>> According to your formula, if a person who doesn't eat eggs buys >>>> cage free eggs and gives them away, just to encourage decent lives >>>> for laying hens, they are being shameful for deliberately contributing >>>> to decent lives for the hens. >>> >>>Someone who gives away food is being charitable. The fact they are >>>promoting >>>the lives of birds in the egg industry has no moral relevance whatsoever, >> >> When and how did it stop being shameful? > >It never was shameful, it was always morally irrelevant. The shame is in >trying to take this "promoting life" concept and applying it as an anti-AR >ploy, in a shabby sophistic attempt to make animal farming and meat >consumption appear more morally acceptable. Such sophistry is shameful, not >the fact that animals experience life. Oh bullshit. You believe just considering the fact that billions of animals experience life is shameful, and that taking credit for providing decent lives for them: "is analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9 Oct 2005 05:56:20 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: > >> On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >[...] >> >> > >> >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about >> >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I am. You >> >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and the >> >> >>>>>> animals to say that. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with >> >> >>>>>ourselves. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? >> >> >> >> >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. >> >> > >> >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the point of >> >> >this? >> >> >> >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious >> >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing >> >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW? >> >> Answer: You would not. Period. >> >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent >> >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination. >> >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals, >> >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen. >> > >> >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals >> >we raise for food to lead decent lives. >> >> Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people >> deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead >> of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because >> he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s) >> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of >> animals raised for food. > >Both these statements are false. No they are not. He believes it's shameful even to consider the fact that the animals owe their lives to the fact that we raise them for food, because of something to do with imaginary moral brownie points. And his main objective is to oppose the suggestion that people deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals INSTEAD OF trying not to contribute to any...becoming veg*ns....becoming "ARAs". That being the case, it's pretty damn obvious he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of animals raised for food. Unless of course you can think of some alternative(s) which would be ethically equivalent...to eliminating animals raised for food, but would not involve deliberately providing them with decent lives. >Dutch can Possibly figure some way to lie about it, but I can't figure out how he can lie his way out of it this one...or really why he would try. >correct me if I >am wrong. > >> You probably are too. If people consider >> the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming, the elimination >> objective, i.e. "AR", would no longer be considered the most >> ethical approach, and veganism would be viewed with much >> less respect. >> >> >> Since you really have no opposition to it, you amusingly make up >> >> things about moral browny points, which you're obviously scared of >> >> losing if you ever break down and consider the animals themselves. >> >> You would shame yourself as an eliminationist if you allowed youself >> >> to give a fraction of a shit about any farm animals' lives. >> >> >> >> >>>Pretty >> >> >>>pointless, don't you think? >> >> >> >> >> ><snip> >> >> > >> >> >>>I just don't "regard" their lives >> >> >> >> >> >> No, you sure don't. >> >> > >> >> >Of course not, >> >> >> >> We are in agreement. Damn. >> >> >> >> >"regarding" with no object is meaningless. >> >> > >> >> >>>to be a >> >> >>>moral bonus >> >> >> >> >> >> You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. >> >> > >> >> >I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant, NOT the >> >> >fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral significance. >> >> >> >> To you, because you are incapable of considering the animals' >> >> lives as we have agreed. That gives me reason to disrespect you, >> >> not think more highly of you. Just as you disrespect me for giving >> >> consideration to the animals themselves, I disrespect you for being >> >> unable to do so, and of course much more so for opposing the idea >> >> that people who can make a habit of doing so. >> >> >> >> >That's the Logic of the Larder, >> >> >> >> You are the Logic of the Eliminationist Talking Pig. >> >> >> >> >and it's false argument. >> >> >> >> LOL. You are Charlotte's Web. You are Chicken Run. You are >> >> Grotesque Child Sex Slave Pigs. >> > >> >I admit I have not read all your exchanges >> >> Here's a sample: >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: "Dutch" > >> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700 >> Message-ID: > >> >> Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to >> taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >but I don't believe you >> >ever satisfcatorily answered Dutch's point about Child sex slaves. >> >> Then why don't you provide a good reason why we should think >> of raising children as sex slaves and raising animals for food in the >> same way? > >"Since my daughter would not have existed if I hadn't given birth >to her for the specific reason of using her as a sex slave > it would be a distortion of reality not to take this fact >into account." > >> Dutch insists that we should, but he certainly has never >> come close to giving a any reason why we should. > >Neither me nor Dutch have been arguing that we should think of >raising children as sex-slaves in the same way as raising livestock >for food. All he has done is point out that the logic of the larder >can justify selling your children onto the streets. Eg: "Since my >daughter would not have existed if I hadn't given birth to her, it >would be a distortion of reality not to take this fact into account." That would only be true if the ONLY reason she had been born was so she could be used as a sex slave. Since I don't think of raising animals for food and raising children as sex slaves in the same way BECAUSE there is such a huge difference between the way life would be for the beings involved, your fantasy about child sex slaves, and even sex slave pigs, is nothing but more "AR" grotesque distortions of the truth. Along the same lines as the retarded fantasies about children killing their parents and then crying about being orphans....you people just want to change the subject to something you feel people will consider worse, and insist that it should be thought of in the same way. If you don't want it to be thought of in the same way, why in the **** would you even try to make the comparison? Answer: you would not. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote dh@. wrote: > On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> ><dh@.> wrote > >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > > >> >[...] > >> > > >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about > >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> I am. You > >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> animals to say that. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with > >> >>>>>ourselves. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you. > >> >>> > >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? > >> >> > >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. > >> > > >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the > >> >point of > >> >this? > >> > >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious > >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing > >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW? > >> Answer: You would not. Period. > >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent > >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination. > >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals, > >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen. > > > >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals > >we raise for food to lead decent lives. > > Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people > deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead > of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because > he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s) > could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of > animals raised for food. Both these statements are false. Dutch can correct me if I am wrong. You're not wrong, but you need to understand ****wit's code. "Deliberately contributing to decent lives for food animals" to the average person means choosing pastured or free-range over intensively-farmed products. When he says it he means 'consuming animal products with the idea that livestock can "get to experience life"'. In that respect he is correct, I oppose that kind of "Logic of the Larder" thinking. > You probably are too. If people consider > the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming, the elimination > objective, i.e. "AR", would no longer be considered the most > ethical approach, and veganism would be viewed with much > less respect. > > >> Since you really have no opposition to it, you amusingly make up > >> things about moral browny points, which you're obviously scared of > >> losing if you ever break down and consider the animals themselves. > >> You would shame yourself as an eliminationist if you allowed youself > >> to give a fraction of a shit about any farm animals' lives. > >> > >> >>>Pretty > >> >>>pointless, don't you think? > >> >> > >> ><snip> > >> > > >> >>>I just don't "regard" their lives > >> >> > >> >> No, you sure don't. > >> > > >> >Of course not, > >> > >> We are in agreement. Damn. > >> > >> >"regarding" with no object is meaningless. > >> > > >> >>>to be a > >> >>>moral bonus > >> >> > >> >> You are incapable of giving them any regard at all. > >> > > >> >I told you above, I regard their welfare to be morally significant, > >> >NOT the > >> >fact that they "get to experience life" that has NO moral > >> >significance. > >> > >> To you, because you are incapable of considering the animals' > >> lives as we have agreed. That gives me reason to disrespect you, > >> not think more highly of you. Just as you disrespect me for giving > >> consideration to the animals themselves, I disrespect you for being > >> unable to do so, and of course much more so for opposing the idea > >> that people who can make a habit of doing so. > >> > >> >That's the Logic of the Larder, > >> > >> You are the Logic of the Eliminationist Talking Pig. > >> > >> >and it's false argument. > >> > >> LOL. You are Charlotte's Web. You are Chicken Run. You are > >> Grotesque Child Sex Slave Pigs. > > > >I admit I have not read all your exchanges > > Here's a sample: > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: "Dutch" > > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700 > Message-ID: > > > Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous > to > taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >but I don't believe you > >ever satisfcatorily answered Dutch's point about Child sex slaves. > > Then why don't you provide a good reason why we should think > of raising children as sex slaves and raising animals for food in the > same way? "Since my daughter would not have existed if I hadn't given birth to her, it would be a distortion of reality not to take this fact into account." > Dutch insists that we should, but he certainly has never > come close to giving a any reason why we should. Neither me nor Dutch have been arguing that we should think of raising children as sex-slaves in the same way as raising livestock for food. All he has done is point out that the logic of the larder can justify selling your children onto the streets. Eg: "Since my daughter would not have existed if I hadn't given birth to her, it would be a distortion of reality not to take this fact into account." Exactly right. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 15:57:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:56:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>> >>>>> According to your formula, if a person who doesn't eat eggs buys >>>>> cage free eggs and gives them away, just to encourage decent lives >>>>> for laying hens, they are being shameful for deliberately contributing >>>>> to decent lives for the hens. >>>> >>>>Someone who gives away food is being charitable. The fact they are >>>>promoting >>>>the lives of birds in the egg industry has no moral relevance >>>>whatsoever, >>> >>> When and how did it stop being shameful? >> >>It never was shameful, it was always morally irrelevant. The shame is in >>trying to take this "promoting life" concept and applying it as an anti-AR >>ploy, in a shabby sophistic attempt to make animal farming and meat >>consumption appear more morally acceptable. Such sophistry is shameful, >>not >>the fact that animals experience life. > > Oh bullshit. No. It's not shameful that animals we breed 'experience life', nor is it shameful to be aware of it. It's just corrupt to *use* the fact to assuage your guilt or derive pride, as the case may be. > You believe just considering the fact that billions of animals > experience life is shameful, The shame is in what you imply by the word "considering", you mean that we derive pride and justification from the fact. > and that taking credit for providing decent lives > for them: "is analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a daughter > you sell > onto the streets." You're equivocating, stop it. Providing "decent lives" is the opposite of providing "bad lives", *that* is admirable. You're twisting it to mean the opposite of providing "no lives", that is sophism. You're not fooling anyone here David. 99% of the people ignore you, the few that respond can see through you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote >He believes it's shameful even to consider the fact > that the animals owe their lives to the fact that we raise them for food, Yes, it's bloody shameful to think that an animal you raise to kill and eat "owes" you some kind of debt. Stop promoting this garbage. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
>>I am an advocate of unfettered capitalism because >>capitalism IS based upon the moral premise of people trading lessor for >>greater value (the nature of man), > > 'Capitalism originated in, and would have been impossible > without, imperialism, colonization, the international slave > trade, genocide, and large-scale environmental destruction. Bullshit. Capitalism would've flourished quite well without slavery and without colonialization. Free markets aren't incumbent on slavery, and never were. Slavery is the antithesis of capitalism because enslaved humans are wholly or partially uncompensated for their goods and services (including their labor). Communism likewise enslaves its captives because workers and producers are unable to set prices for goods, services, labor, etc. It's ironic that the colonization claim is made against capitalism given the land- and labor-grabs made by communist and socialist nations in the last century. Russia's communization extended to the conquest of its neighbors and throughout eastern Europe. China annexed Tibet. The Soviets weren't content with Cuba as an ally and sought to bring Central America into its axis. Etc. > Organized around profit *Everything* is "organized around profit." You would do something else if you weren't able to make ends meet from rubbing smelly old feet, and you would do so because you operate in a capitalist economy. You may still have to do that someday when the government wakes up to the sham that you charlatans have been peddling on taxpayer-funded health care (and your foot massages aren't health care). > and power imperatives, capitalism > is a system of slavery, exploitation, class hierarchy and > inequality, violence, and forced labor. Glad to see ALF parrots Marx and Lenin verbatim. I'm not surprised. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
>>>'Capitalism originated in, and would have been impossible >>>without, imperialism, colonization, the international slave >>>trade, >> >>If all of the wealth of the Black Americans was pooled, it would >>be the seventh most wealthy economy in the world today, not bad for >>a race whose ancestors were slaves eh? > > Predictably, if shockingly, you are trying to justify slavery. Strawman. He's not trying to justify slavery, he's only making a point with respect to the wild-assed claim you made via ALF's website. >>I reckon there's litterally millions of black Americans who are >>as pleased as punch that their ancestors were chosen as slaves. > > Watched the news lately? Are you suggesting the loafing dumb asses who refused to leave New Orleans reflect the apex in the Black American experience and thought? You're an even bigger moron (and a racist, too) than I thought you were if you do. The Black American experience isn't monolithic, Lesley. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:28:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Dave" > wrote > >dh@. wrote: > >> On 7 Oct 2005 15:31:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:46:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:51:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >[...] >> >> > >> >> >>>>>> For example: you are not capable of thinking about >> >> >>>>>> whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>Nope, that's wrong. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I am. You >> >> >>>>>> even think it's shameful to try. I think you shame yourself and >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> animals to say that. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>Dead wrong, I think it *essential* that we have that dialogue with >> >> >>>>>ourselves. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Of course I don't believe you. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>That pretty much leaves you talking to yourself then, doesn't it? >> >> >> >> >> >> No. I'm just discussing it with someone who is dishonest. >> >> > >> >> >If you can't accept simple statements of belief from me, what's the >> >> >point of >> >> >this? >> >> >> >> Of course it all gets back to more dishonesty, and very obvious >> >> dishonesty to me. Why would you oppose deliberately contributing >> >> to decent AW over elimination, if you're in favor of decent AW? >> >> Answer: You would not. Period. >> >> So what are we left with? You supporting elimination over decent >> >> AW, meaning you're actively supporting "AR"=Elimination. >> >> So what's the point? I encourage decent lives for food animals, >> >> and you oppose the suggestion because you don't want it to happen. >> > >> >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals >> >we raise for food to lead decent lives. >> >> Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people >> deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead >> of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because >> he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s) >> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of >> animals raised for food. > >Both these statements are false. Dutch can correct me if I >am wrong. > >You're not wrong, Yes he is, as you continue to prove. >but you need to understand ****wit's code. "Deliberately >contributing to decent lives for food animals" to the average person means >choosing pastured or free-range over intensively-farmed products. But to "ARAs" it means considering that any alternative(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of animals raised for food as I pointed out, and it scares the hell out of them. Dutch is obviously one of the most terrified by the suggestion. Even to the "average person" deliberately contributing to decent lives for food animals would necessarily require giving some consideration to the lives of the animals, and if a person is going to think it through some more he might conclude that: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" > Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700 The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ Dutch copied that someplace and posted for some strange reason. I would like to learn where he copied from, of course because that's the way that I obviously feel about it. It's strange that Dutch posted it because he quite obviously does not believe it, and is very opposed to me encouraging people to consider the fact when contemplating human influence on animals. [...] >Neither me nor Dutch have been arguing that we should think of >raising children as sex-slaves in the same way as raising livestock >for food. Then why bring up the retarded fantasy at all? Why make up a fantasy, and then present it, and then insist that we not compare it to what we're discussing? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:28:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >>"Dave" > wrote [..] >>> >My interpretation of Dutch's posts is that he does want the animals >>> >we raise for food to lead decent lives. >>> >>> Dutch is extremely opposed to the suggestion that people >>> deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals, instead >>> of doing nothing for them by becoming veg*n. That's because >>> he is opposed to people considering that any alternative(s) >>> could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of >>> animals raised for food. >> >>Both these statements are false. Dutch can correct me if I >>am wrong. >> >>You're not wrong, > > Yes he is, as you continue to prove. > >>but you need to understand ****wit's code. "Deliberately >>contributing to decent lives for food animals" to the average person means >>choosing pastured or free-range over intensively-farmed products. > > But to "ARAs" it means considering that any alternative(s) > could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of > animals raised for food as I pointed out, and it scares the hell > out of them. It doesn't scare them, they think it's unethical. > Dutch is obviously one of the most terrified by > the suggestion. That's an obvious lie, I eat meat every day. I had chicken for supper last night and bacon for breakfast today. > Even to the "average person" deliberately contributing to > decent lives for food animals would necessarily require giving > some consideration to the lives of the animals, "Some consideration" does not include extracting moral credit from the fact that they "experience life". and if a person > is going to think it through some more he might conclude that: > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: "Dutch" > > Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700 > > The method of husbandry determines > whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > Dutch copied that someplace and posted for some strange > reason. I would like to learn where he copied from, of course > because that's the way that I obviously feel about it. It's > strange that Dutch posted it because he quite obviously does > not believe it, and is very opposed to me encouraging people > to consider the fact when contemplating human influence on > animals. "Contemplating" does not include extracting moral credit from the fact that they "experience life". [...] >>Neither me nor Dutch have been arguing that we should think of >>raising children as sex-slaves in the same way as raising livestock >>for food. > > Then why bring up the retarded fantasy at all? Why make up > a fantasy, and then present it, and then insist that we not compare > it to what we're discussing? We are discussing the type of thinking that says "life" can be used as a justification for killing. That's YOUR position. In that context the analogy exists. Raising children as sex-slaves is not the same as raising livestock for food, but if using *life* as a justification for killing is a possibility then it must be considered in both cases, since in both cases we "provide life". |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"captain ahab" > wrote in message ...
How long have you been released from the asylum for this time 'usual suspect' > ? > pearl wrote: > >>I am an advocate of unfettered capitalism because > >>capitalism IS based upon the moral premise of people trading lessor for > >>greater value (the nature of man), > > > > 'Capitalism originated in, and would have been impossible > > without, imperialism, colonization, the international slave > > trade, genocide, and large-scale environmental destruction. > > Bullshit. Capitalism would've flourished quite well without slavery and > without colonialization. Free markets aren't incumbent on slavery, and > never were. > Slavery is the antithesis of capitalism because enslaved > humans are wholly or partially uncompensated for their goods and > services (including their labor). Read it again. ' The victory of the North over the South in the U.S. Civil War represented the victory of the capitalist system over the slave system. It represented the triumph of the capitalist form of using people as a means of creating wealth. Under the system of outright slavery, the slave is literally the property of the slaveowner. Under capitalism, slavery becomes wage-slavery: The exploited class of workers is not owned by the exploiting class of capitalists (the owners of factories, land, etc.), but the workers are in a position where they must sell their ability to work to a capitalist in order to earn a wage. Capitalism needs a mass of workers that is "free," in a two-fold sense: They must be "free" of all means to live (all means of production), except their ability to work; and they must not be bound to a particular owner, a particular site, a particular guild, etc. --- they must be "free" to do whatever work is demanded of them, they must be "free" to move from place to place, and "free" to be hired and fired according to the needs of capital! If they cannot enrich a capitalist through working, then the workers cannot work, they cannot earn a wage. But even if they cannot find a capitalist to exploit their labor, even if they are unemployed, they still remain under the domination of the capitalist class and of the process of capitalist accumulation of wealth--the proletarians (the workers) are dependent on the capitalist class and the capitalist system for their very lives, so long as the capitalist rules. It is this rule, this system of exploitation, that the U.S. Constitution has upheld and enforced, all the more so after outright slavery was abolished through the Civil War. ... http://rwor.org/a/v19/930-39/939/constit.htm <malicious, vindictive, psychopathic slander snipped> |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? | General Cooking | |||
| More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! | General Cooking | |||
| OT Hypocrites; | General Cooking | |||
| Hypocrites; | General Cooking | |||
| Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
