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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #521 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

On 29 Oct 2005 12:06:59 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 26 Oct 2005 14:24:25 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 24 Oct 2005 10:39:38 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 20 Oct 2005 04:25:46 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >If you use the illogic of the larder to promote the view
>> >> >> >that raising animals for meat is morally superior to veganism because
>> >> >> >you
>> >> >> >are creating animal lives then the only way I can see for you to
>> >> >> >disagree
>> >> >> >with the claim that raising humans for food is a good thing is to claim
>> >> >> >that
>> >> >> >the human lives, that would only exist if we raised them for food, are
>> >> >> >of
>> >> >> >trivial value compared with the animal lives that exist because we
>> >> >> >raise them
>> >> >> >for food.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's certainly no surprise that you can only think of something so
>> >> >> stupid as that. You would never consider how the quality of life
>> >> >> factors into it.
>> >> >
>> >> >You presume too much.
>> >> >
>> >> >> You would never consider how much more impractical
>> >> >> it would be.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would it be impractical to raise humans for food
>> >>
>> >> I can think of two very significant reasons that you
>> >> should be able to think of for yourself. If you can think
>> >> of any, then let me know so I have a better idea of
>> >> what to think about you. If you can't, then let me know
>> >> that so I have a better idea of what to think about you,
>> >> and then I'll also tell you at least two significant reasons.
>> >
>> >Just answer the question.

>>
>> They are harder to raise.

>
>Nevertheless it would be possible to raise them for food. The
>economics may well mitigate against it


Then we can drop it until that situation changes.

[...]
>>
>> >> >or as
>> >> >you euphemistically phrase it "provide decent lives for farmed
>> >> >humans"?
>> >> >
>> >> >> You would never consider how human would suffer from
>> >> >> the mental burden that they will be killed,
>> >> >
>> >> >Not a large enough burden to render their lives of negative
>> >> >value.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know?
>> >
>> >How do you know that the lives of some farm animals have positive
>> >value?

>>
>> Just answer the question.

>
>It is an educated guess based on my experience of living a human life


In that part of the fantasy, do the humans you keep wanting to talk
about being raised for food know they will be killed....

>just like your verdict that the lives of some farm animals have
>positive
>value. In any case why do you assume these hypothetical humans we could
>raise for food would know that they would one day be killed. They would
>have no contact with the outside world except via the people who were
>raising them from birth and could basically indoctrinate the slaves any
>way
>they liked.


...and in that part do they not know?

>> >> Do you think that knowing they were
>> >> slaves made life of negative value for slaves?

>
>Probably because it would have affected their esteem
>and perhaps caused them to harbour resentment but this
>does not mean that well treated slaves could not lead lives
>of positive value.


What about livestock?

[...]
>> >> They only exist because humans raise them--REGARDLESS of what
>> >> DIFFERENT animals exist,
>> >
>> >They do not exist regardless of what different animals exist. They
>> >exist
>> >because the food supply is denied to these different animals.

>>
>> I don't believe you. Which different animals?

>
>Potential animals that thrive in woodland habitats that
>have been cleared to make way for grazing or livestock feed.


Which particular "potential animals that thrive in woodland habitats"
do you think we should provide life for instead of raising cattle, and why?

>Potential animal that grazing lands could support if the grass
>wasn't nourishing the cattle instead.


Which "potential animal that grazing lands could support if the grass
wasn't nourishing the cattle instead" do you think we should provide life
for instead of raising cattle, and why?
  #522 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
S. Maizlich
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren'thypocrites)

dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:58:11 GMT, "S. Maizlich" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 27 Oct 2005 15:03:53 -0700, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 26 Oct 2005 14:41:09 -0700, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>How do you know that the lives of some farm animals have positive
>>>>>>>value?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He doesn't. He's projecting. He believes he has some special insight
>>>>>>into animal psychology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your boy Dutch pasted this Goo:
>>>>>_____________________________________________ ____________
>>>>>From: "Dutch" >
>>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>>>
>>>>>The method of husbandry determines
>>>>>whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>>>>Why do you think he pasted something that neither of you are able to
>>>>>believe?
>>>>
>>>>It's easy to believe it. It IS the method of husbandry that determines
>>>>if "life" has a positive or negative meaning to animals.
>>>
>>>
>>> IF! you are capable of understanding that life can have a positive
>>>value TO THE ANIMALS

>>
>>You aren't interested in the "value of life" "TO THE
>>ANIMALS" [sic]. This is entirely about "value" to YOU.

>
>
> What makes you "think"


I always crack up when you do that.


> those two issues can't both be taken
> into consideration as the completely different issues that they are?


You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.
  #523 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:59:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On 27 Oct 2005 15:03:53 -0700, "Leif Erikson" >
>>> wrote:

>>
>>[..]
>>>>> The method of husbandry determines
>>>>> whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>>>> Why do you think he pasted something that neither of you are able to
>>>>> believe?
>>>>
>>>>It's easy to believe it. It IS the method of husbandry that determines
>>>>if "life" has a positive or negative meaning to animals.
>>>
>>> IF! you are capable of understanding that life can have a positive
>>> value TO THE ANIMALS, then why do you insist we disregard that
>>> fact when considering whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS
>>> to raise them for food?

>>
>>We don't disregard that idea. We disregard the idea that raising animals
>>makes us moral due to the fact that those animals "get to experience
>>life".

>
> LOL. I know, because you can't figure out how life could have
> positive "VALUE TO THE ANIMAL" [s].


No, it's because I know that the value of life itself is non-transferable.

>>Ideas like animal husbandry, welfare and cruelty are only relevant *if*
>>the
>>animals are raised. Vegans do nothing that can be criticized by *not*
>>"encouraging animal lives", just as you can't be criticized because you
>>don't raise hundreds of mice in your bedroom, or do you?

>
> Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of
> anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's
> possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS?


I've already said that it's possible, in the quote you keep asking me about.

> Since you do NOT, how in hell could you possibly have anything to
> say about which ones do and which ones don't?


So when are you going to start raising mice in your bedroom? Stop denying
those animals a chance to experience life you selfish *******.


  #524 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:34:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...


>> Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of
>> anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's
>> possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS?

>
>I've already said that it's possible,


Why do you think we should disregard the fact that some farm animals
benefit from farming, when we think about human influence on farm animals?

>in the quote you keep asking me about.


Where did you copy the idea from?
  #525 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:12:03 GMT, "S. Maizlich" > wrote:

>You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
>[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
>own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
>[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.


That's a lie. I understand the difference between "value of
life TO THE ANIMALS" and their value to me. You can't, because
you can't comprehend that there is any "value of life TO THE
ANIMALS".


  #526 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:12:03 GMT, "S. Maizlich" > wrote:
>
> >You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
> >[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
> >own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
> >[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.

>
> That's a lie.


No, it isn't a lie. It is a smokescreen. You have no special insight
into "value of life TO THE ANIMALS" [sic]. It is only YOUR values that
you're projecting. The malarkey about "...TO THE ANIMALS" [sic] is
silly and not credible.

  #527 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

dh@. wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2005 15:06:29 -0700, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 26 Oct 2005 14:24:25 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 24 Oct 2005 10:39:38 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 20 Oct 2005 04:25:46 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >If you use the illogic of the larder to promote the view
> >> >> >> >that raising animals for meat is morally superior to veganism because
> >> >> >> >you
> >> >> >> >are creating animal lives then the only way I can see for you to
> >> >> >> >disagree
> >> >> >> >with the claim that raising humans for food is a good thing is to claim
> >> >> >> >that
> >> >> >> >the human lives, that would only exist if we raised them for food, are
> >> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >trivial value compared with the animal lives that exist because we
> >> >> >> >raise them
> >> >> >> >for food.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's certainly no surprise that you can only think of something so
> >> >> >> stupid as that. You would never consider how the quality of life
> >> >> >> factors into it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You presume too much.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You would never consider how much more impractical
> >> >> >> it would be.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why would it be impractical to raise humans for food
> >> >>
> >> >> I can think of two very significant reasons that you
> >> >> should be able to think of for yourself. If you can think
> >> >> of any, then let me know so I have a better idea of
> >> >> what to think about you. If you can't, then let me know
> >> >> that so I have a better idea of what to think about you,
> >> >> and then I'll also tell you at least two significant reasons.
> >> >
> >> >Just answer the question.
> >>
> >> They are harder to raise.
> >>
> >> >> >or as
> >> >> >you euphemistically phrase it "provide decent lives for farmed
> >> >> >humans"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> You would never consider how human would suffer from
> >> >> >> the mental burden that they will be killed,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not a large enough burden to render their lives of negative
> >> >> >value.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you know?
> >> >
> >> >How do you know that the lives of some farm animals have positive
> >> >value?
> >>
> >> Just answer the question.

> >
> >You answer the question

>
> He has no idea whether it would be a large enough burden to render
> their lives of negative value or not.


You didn't answer the question. Why would you even "think" that life
itself is a "benefit" to farm animals?

  #528 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)


<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:34:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]
>>> Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of
>>> anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's
>>> possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS?

>>
>>I've already said that it's possible,

>
> Why do you think we should disregard the fact that some farm animals
> benefit from farming, when we think about human influence on farm animals?


Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means, may
not and should not be used as an argument for raising them. The argument is
circular sophistry, it's self-serving and deceitful. That fact is so
apparent that it lights up the sky, yet for some reason you are unable to
see it.



  #529 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)


<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:12:03 GMT, "S. Maizlich" >
> wrote:
>
>>You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
>>[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
>>own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
>>[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.

>
> That's a lie. I understand the difference between "value of
> life TO THE ANIMALS" and their value to me. You can't, because
> you can't comprehend that there is any "value of life TO THE
> ANIMALS".


You only talk about this vague concept of value TO THE ANIMALS because you
think it's an argument favouring raising them as livestock. It's an obvious
indirect argument for YOU, therefore it's inadmissable. Even if you made the
argument *properly* by specifying which conditions are a benefit and which
are not, it still would fail.


  #530 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for "ARAs", attn. Dutch

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 17:10:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:34:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>[..]
>>>> Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of
>>>> anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's
>>>> possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS?
>>>
>>>I've already said that it's possible,

>>
>> Why do you think we should disregard the fact that some farm animals
>> benefit from farming, when we think about human influence on farm animals?

>
>Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means,


Since YOU/"ARAs" admittedly have no clue how life could have a
positive value for any livestock, why in the hell would anyone consider
YOUR/"ARAs'" opinion about it to be of any value?

Why did you paste the fact that life can have positive value for
livestock--and later said you've "already said that it's possible"--when
you admittedly don't have a clue "whatever that means"?


  #531 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

On 2 Nov 2005 12:04:03 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:12:03 GMT, "S. Maizlich" > wrote:
>>
>> >You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
>> >[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
>> >own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
>> >[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.

>>
>> That's a lie.

>
>No, it isn't a lie. It is a smokescreen. You have no special insight
>into "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"


You can't comprehend that there is any "value of life TO THE
ANIMALS".
  #532 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren'thypocrites)

dh@. wrote:

> On 2 Nov 2005 12:04:03 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:12:03 GMT, "S. Maizlich" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
>>>>[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
>>>>own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
>>>>[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.
>>>
>>> That's a lie.

>>
>>No, it isn't a lie. It is a smokescreen. You have no special insight
>>into "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"

>
>
> You can't comprehend that there is any "value of life TO THE
> ANIMALS".


You can't SHOW that there is any "value of life 'TO THE
ANIMALS'" [sic]. It's all about your projection.
  #533 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for "ARAs", attn. Dutch


<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 17:10:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means,

>
> Since <SNIP>


It's time you explained why you aren't raising mice in your home so that
they can have "positive experiences". You have ability to do this easily
and you refuse. You are denying thousands of mice lives that they would have
had if you had accepted my suggestion. How can you live with the guilt?


  #534 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)


<dh@.> wrote
> On 2 Nov 2005 12:04:03 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:12:03 GMT, "S. Maizlich" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
>>> >[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
>>> >own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
>>> >[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.
>>>
>>> That's a lie.

>>
>>No, it isn't a lie. It is a smokescreen. You have no special insight
>>into "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"

>
> You can't comprehend that there is any "value of life TO THE
> ANIMALS".


I can't comprehend how you can think that anyone is fooled by this bogus
argument.


  #535 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for "ARAs", attn. Dutch

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 17:10:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>>>Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means,

>>
>> Since <SNIP>

>
>It's time you explained why you aren't raising mice in your home so that
>they can have "positive experiences". You have ability to do this easily


That's a lie.

>and you refuse.


Because providing life of positive value to mice isn't worth the effort
it would take for me, nor is providing life of positive value to hamsters,
providing life of positive value to gerbils, providing life of positive value to
finches, providing life of positive value to parakeets, providing life of positive
value to love birds, providing life of positive value to guinea pigs, providing
life of positive value to fish, providing life of positive value to frogs, providing
life of positive value to turtles, providing life of positive value to dogs, providing
life of positive value to cats, providing life of positive value to chickens, providing
life of positive value to pigs, providing life of positive value to cattle, providing life of
positive value to aardvarks, providing life of positive value to orangutans, providing
life of positive value to porcupines, providing life of positive value to rabbits, providing
life of positive value to snakes,providing life of positive value to salamanders, or
providing life of positive value to anything else.

>You are denying thousands of mice lives that they would have
>had if you had accepted my suggestion.


To be consistent, YOU/"ARAs" should try to DISCOURAGE me from doing it
you stupid moron, not suggest it. But then you don't have a clue about how life
could have positive value for anything, so of course any opinion you might have
about it is certain to be ignorant.

Now it's you're turn to once AGAIN cowardly refuse to answer the questions
I've been asking you for about a month or so, you pathetic half ass:

Since YOU/"ARAs" admittedly have no clue how life could have a
positive value for any livestock, why in the hell would anyone consider
YOUR/"ARAs'" opinion about it to be of any value?

Why did you paste the fact that life can have positive value for
livestock--and later said you've "already said that it's possible"--when
you admittedly don't have a clue "whatever that means"?



  #536 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:25:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On 2 Nov 2005 12:04:03 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:12:03 GMT, "S. Maizlich" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
>>>> >[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
>>>> >own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
>>>> >[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't a lie. It is a smokescreen. You have no special insight
>>>into "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"

>>
>> You can't comprehend that there is any "value of life TO THE
>> ANIMALS".

>
>I can't comprehend


LOL! That's because Goo told you that there is no value of life
to any animals. He told you there is none, and you stupidly believe
him. If you're really as stupid as you display yourself to be, Goo and
I both laugh at you.
  #537 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for "ARAs", attn. Dutch


<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:23:28 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 17:10:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>
>>>>Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means,
>>>
>>> Since <SNIP>

>>
>>It's time you explained why you aren't raising mice in your home so that
>>they can have "positive experiences". You have ability to do this easily

>
> That's a lie.


I had a roomate in college who did it, he trapped a couple of mice with a
homemade trap, put them in a homemade cage and kept them there. Of course
this isn't "providing life" as you like to put it.

>>and you refuse.

>
> Because providing life of positive value to mice isn't worth the effort
> it would take for me, nor is providing life of positive value to hamsters,
> providing life of positive value to gerbils, providing life of positive
> value to
> finches, providing life of positive value to parakeets, providing life of
> positive
> value to love birds, providing life of positive value to guinea pigs,
> providing
> life of positive value to fish, providing life of positive value to frogs,
> providing
> life of positive value to turtles, providing life of positive value to
> dogs, providing
> life of positive value to cats, providing life of positive value to
> chickens, providing
> life of positive value to pigs, providing life of positive value to
> cattle, providing life of
> positive value to aardvarks, providing life of positive value to
> orangutans, providing
> life of positive value to porcupines, providing life of positive value to
> rabbits, providing
> life of positive value to snakes,providing life of positive value to
> salamanders, or
> providing life of positive value to anything else.


That's pretty selfish. Why should anyone listen to your arguments about
"providing life of positive value" if you won't make the effort yourself?

>>You are denying thousands of mice lives that they would have
>>had if you had accepted my suggestion.

>
> To be consistent, YOU/"ARAs" should try to DISCOURAGE me from doing it
> you stupid moron, not suggest it. But then you don't have a clue about how
> life
> could have positive value for anything, so of course any opinion you might
> have
> about it is certain to be ignorant.


To be consistent you need to do it. If you can legitimately point out that
vegans are failing to "providing life of positive value" for livestock by
not eating meat then I can legitimately point out that you are failing to
"providing life of positive value" for mice by abstaining from raising them.
If abstaining forms a valid criticism then anyone can use it.

> Now it's you're turn to once AGAIN cowardly refuse to answer the
> questions
> I've been asking you for about a month or so, you pathetic half ass:
>
> Since YOU/"ARAs" admittedly have no clue how life could have a
> positive value for any livestock, why in the hell would anyone consider
> YOUR/"ARAs'" opinion about it to be of any value?
>
> Why did you paste the fact that life can have positive value for
> livestock--and later said you've "already said that it's possible"--when
> you admittedly don't have a clue "whatever that means"?


Unless you define what you mean by it, it's worthless.


  #538 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)


<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:25:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On 2 Nov 2005 12:04:03 -0800, "Leif Erikson" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:12:03 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >You don't consider the "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
>>>>> >[sic] at all. It's ONLY about your feelings about your
>>>>> >own life. All the blabber about "...TO THE ANIMALS"
>>>>> >[sic] is just a thin smokescreen.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie.
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't a lie. It is a smokescreen. You have no special insight
>>>>into "value of life TO THE ANIMALS"
>>>
>>> You can't comprehend that there is any "value of life TO THE
>>> ANIMALS".

>>
>>I can't comprehend

>
> LOL! That's because


That's because some mystical "value to the animals" does not translate into
an argument for raising them.


  #539 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
larrylook
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)


> I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", 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) because
> all these animals "get to experience life". That idea must be discarded as
> corrupt.


This "get to experience life" thing is absurd and it's hard to believe
anyone believes in it! Is my neighbor more moral than me because he has 12
kids and I have 2. Has he done a better thing? He gave 10 more kids the
ability to experience life. Noone would accept this.

The person who breeds mice and creates a 1000 mice and slaughters them
painlessly after a short life has done more good than someone who keeps the
males and females separately so they don't breed? Preposterous! If I put
soil in my back yard that can support 100,000 worms I'm 10 times as moral as
someone who has soil that can support 10,000 worms!

This logic takes you nowhere and is counterintuitive. You can't calculate
morality. It's not like math. But the idea that creating lives so the
animals get to experience life being good in itself doesn't make sense to
me. Most would not consider this inherently a good thing. This is a very
fringe belief. I wouldn't consider it evil for a MD to give a minor who was
raped by a uncle an abortifacient the day after the rape, even if the egg
was already fertilized. Yet you're denying a human an opportunity to
experience life.


  #540 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:09:24 -0500, "larrylook" > wrote:

>
>> I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", 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) because
>> all these animals "get to experience life". That idea must be discarded as
>> corrupt.

>
>This "get to experience life" thing is absurd and it's hard to believe
>anyone believes in it!


Billions of animals live because of people who eat meat. The task of
my opponents has never been accomplished, and it is: to explain why
we should disregard the animals' lives, when considering human influence
on animals.

>Is my neighbor more moral than me because he has 12
>kids and I have 2. Has he done a better thing? He gave 10 more kids the
>ability to experience life. Noone would accept this.
>
>The person who breeds mice and creates a 1000 mice and slaughters them
>painlessly after a short life has done more good than someone who keeps the
>males and females separately so they don't breed? Preposterous! If I put
>soil in my back yard that can support 100,000 worms I'm 10 times as moral as
>someone who has soil that can support 10,000 worms!
>
>This logic takes you nowhere and is counterintuitive. You can't calculate
>morality. It's not like math. But the idea that creating lives so the
>animals get to experience life being good in itself doesn't make sense to
>me. Most would not consider this inherently a good thing. This is a very
>fringe belief.


It depends how much thought you want to give it, and how you want
to think about it. So far my "opponents" have pretty much only been able
to insist we should not think about it, without providing a good reason why
we should not. There must be some reason however stupid, but what
could it be?

>I wouldn't consider it evil for a MD to give a minor who was
>raped by a uncle an abortifacient the day after the rape, even if the egg
>was already fertilized. Yet you're denying a human an opportunity to
>experience life.


Start with the very most basic question then: is life ever a positive thing
for the individual? If you're not willing to consider that, explain why. If you
are and have concluded that it never is, then please say so. If you are
and have concluded that sometimes it is, then please explain when you
think it is and when you think it's not.


  #541 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)


<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:09:24 -0500, "larrylook" > wrote:
>
>>
>>> I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", 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) because
>>> all these animals "get to experience life". That idea must be discarded
>>> as
>>> corrupt.

>>
>>This "get to experience life" thing is absurd and it's hard to believe
>>anyone believes in it!

>
> Billions of animals live because of people who eat meat. The task of
> my opponents has never been accomplished,


It's been accomplished a thousand times.

and it is: to explain why
> we should disregard the animals' lives, when considering human influence
> on animals.


We don't "disregard their lives", we just do not assign phantom moral
significance to them as you do.


  #542 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:29:26 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:09:24 -0500, "larrylook" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", 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) because
>>>> all these animals "get to experience life". That idea must be discarded
>>>> as
>>>> corrupt.
>>>
>>>This "get to experience life" thing is absurd and it's hard to believe
>>>anyone believes in it!

>>
>> Billions of animals live because of people who eat meat. The task of
>> my opponents has never been accomplished,

>
>It's been accomplished a thousand times.


Not once. Just as you did not do it in your last post, and will not do it
in any future post, you have never done it at all. That's why you can't
provide a single example of it ever being done.

> and it is: to explain why
>> we should disregard the animals' lives, when considering human influence
>> on animals.

>
>We don't "disregard their lives",


Then explain what sort of regard you give them. But you can't, because
you give them none at all.
  #543 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dutch says " don't become a vegan" (was: vegetarians aren't hypocrites)

dh@. lied:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:29:26 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> lied
> >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:09:24 -0500, "larrylook" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> I'm not worried about losing "moral bonus points", 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) because
> >>>> all these animals "get to experience life". That idea must be discarded
> >>>> as
> >>>> corrupt.
> >>>
> >>>This "get to experience life" thing is absurd and it's hard to believe
> >>>anyone believes in it!
> >>
> >> Billions of animals live because of people who eat meat. The task of
> >> my opponents has never been accomplished,

> >
> >It's been accomplished a thousand times.

>
> Not once.



Many times. There is no moral importance in the tiny fact that the
animals "only" live because we eat them - absolutely no moral
importance to it at all.


> > and it is: to explain why
> >> we should disregard the animals' lives, when considering human influence
> >> on animals.

> >
> >We don't "disregard their lives",

>
> Then explain what sort of regard you give them.


Regard for the quality of their lives, IF they exist.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? lack of conscience General Cooking 0 22-09-2015 11:15 PM
More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! Ted[_2_] General Cooking 0 06-09-2007 03:48 AM
OT Hypocrites; Doug Perkins General Cooking 13 20-06-2005 03:48 PM
Hypocrites; [email protected] General Cooking 0 20-06-2005 01:33 AM
Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead jeff stier General Cooking 17 05-06-2004 05:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"