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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 09:34 AM
Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills
 
Posts: n/a
Default


So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.


you mean animals that are not conceived? what if they're aborted? there's
a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 09:52 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills" wrote in
message ...

So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.


you mean animals that are not conceived? what if they're aborted?
there's a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)


Yes, that's more precise, thank you.


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 05:25 PM
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


[email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"larrylook" wrote
How do you know I don't care?

You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
opposition to
humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
products.

I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmo=

ther
when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would =

find
the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
repugnant.

So saving animal lives is not your main priority,

You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
think
it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something=

up.

Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through t=

hat
process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim=

to,
neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.

it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?

It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
animals by being vegan or by eating meat.


Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
prevent future animals from being born,


Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing somethi=

ng
to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.

or as they see it, they *save* the
animals from being born into an abbreviated life


=B7 Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
that the animals are going to be killed.


None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).
Your failure to take these facts into consideration
is the real distortion of reality.=20

[snip]

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 08:09 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote


· Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not
being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised
and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
they get as a result of it. ·


That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep them
in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.


They gain life from it. Remember? Or did you unlearn that too?
They gain life from it, and you want very badly to PREVENT people
from considering that aspect. Remember? That's the main reason
for the hundreds or thousands of posts you've made to me, in your
attempts to make the lives of billions of animals appear to be
insignificant to me. Remember?
[···]
marked by suffering,
deprivation

[···]
it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.

[···]
and exploitation.

[···]
Exploitation is exploitation,

[···]
Only by consuming selectively,


Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals.


That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.


I was hoping you might somehow understand the second time. Let's
try it this way: How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute
to decent lives for farm animals, without consuming selectively?

simply consuming does not do that.


I never said it does.


It's implied in your position.


I am very curious to see how.

You are
pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
you
stop lying ****wit?


I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point
out.


You don't "point out truth"


If I were going to lie, I wouldn't say the things I do you stupid
moron. I'd say things that I thought would make people like me
better. You dumbass.

****wit, you spin a shabby sophistry.

For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:

1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.


Being born is not a benefit.


The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has
positive or negative value to the animal. How did you unlearn that?

2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.


Only if the animals are born.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.


No


Liar.

it would make it irrelevant.

4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
contribute to their elimination.


Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
AW for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
some vegetable products.


There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute fewer wildlife
deaths and to decent lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

with your
spinny rhetoric.

6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.


"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.


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.


Explain how a farmer taking credit for the life of his favorite cow, is
analagous to him whoring out his daughter.

We
raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.


When considering whether or not it's cruel to the animals to do so,
I will not attempt to avoid considering their life.

[...]
4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
for "AR" organizations.


I don't even understand that one.


You want me to kill myself because I point out the difference between
AW and "AR". The reason you want me to kill myself is because you
believe, as I do, that the vast majority of the financial support for "AR"As
comes from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of
animal use. We agree about that. The difference is that I want people
to understand the difference, so they will stop contributing to your elimination
objective. Of course, you do NOT want them to stop. You understood better
than I did before I explained it, and we both damn well know it. I understand
that is the way it is, but don't understand why. You do understand why, and
also why you created the situation.

5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
deliberately
contribute to decent lives for food animals.


Those are not the only two options,


What's the other one?

it's a fase choice fallacy.


[...]
Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy
to
understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!


I didn't unlearn anything ****wit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.


Well, I don't really give a **** whether you consider it a moral brownie
point or any other imaginary damn stupid thing. No brownie points. No
gold stars. No lollipops or any other stupid ass thing. How's that?

Here is where you can't go, but I won't forget about it. The method of
husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative
value to the animal. That means TO THE ANIMAL you selfish *******.
Not to you. You are too selfish to understand the truth of your own
words, and Salt's imaginary singing pig was correct when it said in its
final moments:

It is not for their sake but for thine, that you would
rather prevent their lives than see them deliberately
provided with decent lives and humane deaths.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 08:12 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:40 -0700, "Dave" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"larrylook" wrote
How do you know I don't care?

You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
opposition to
humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
products.

I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
repugnant.

So saving animal lives is not your main priority,

You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
think
it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.

Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through that
process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim to,
neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.

it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?

It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
animals by being vegan or by eating meat.

Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
prevent future animals from being born,


Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing something
to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.

or as they see it, they *save* the
animals from being born into an abbreviated life


· Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
that the animals are going to be killed.


None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).


I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.

Your failure to take these facts into consideration
is the real distortion of reality.


I most certainly take them into consideration. I've pointed out
more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
crop filds. I have also more than once asked: why should we only
contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 08:15 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote


You "ARAs" decide


You know I'm not an ARA


How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 08:19 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:34:19 GMT, "Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills"
wrote:


So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.


you mean animals that are not conceived?


They are too stupid to take that into consideration to any extent.
I call their fantasy idea ines (imaginary nonexistent "entities") for
convenience. The heart of their argument is totally dependant on
assigning some significance to ines. Dutch's hero, Goo, who
began this campaign to prevent consideration of the lives of
billions of animals, says that animals can't benefit because ines
don't, which seems absurd to me:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:18:19 GMT

"Life" cannot be a benefit, or something "better" than
what was in place before, TO a being that doesn't
exist. But before they are conceived and then born,
animals don't exist. Thus, "life" CANNOT be a
"benefit" to animals, as stupid illogical ****wit would
have it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza"
Message-ID: .com

NO animal "benefits" from coming into existence
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza"
Date: 8 Mar 2005 10:32:48 -0800

An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to that entity.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jay Santos
Message-ID: t

Life itself is not a benefit.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID:

Animals "getting to experience life", per se, is not worthy of
moral consideration.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza"
Message-ID: .com

No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Wilson Woods
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 16:26:04 GMT

Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit" to them
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza"
Message-ID: .com

Initial existence
CANNOT be a benefit to the entity that comes into existence
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza"
Message-ID: .com

No animal "benefits" from coming into existence.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From:
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:40:51 GMT

Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Dieter
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:15:23 GMT

Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living
thing, for very well documented and tightly logical
reasons that have been explained THOUSANDS of times
here, and that you, of course, cannot refute.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

what if they're aborted?


What if? The Goos believe that their lives are not a benefit anyway,
so what do they lose whenever they are killed? By the Goobal argument
nothing, regardless of quality of life or anything else.

there's
a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)


Here's an interesting idiocy: I pointed out a number of times that
if unborn animals are not born it would kill the unborn and the mother,
but still Goo continued to insist that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:59 GMT

NO animals "benefit" from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:49 GMT

No animal benefits from being born. Period.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:12:48 GMT

NO animals benefit from being born, ****wit. None.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:16:38 GMT

NO animals benefit from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:33:07 GMT

NO animal benefits from being born
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:53:46 GMT

Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:20:32 GMT

NO animals 'benefit' from being born, ****wit. Not a
single one.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:53:53 GMT

Being born is not a benefit, ****WIT; it cannot be.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 10:17 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote


· Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not
being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised
and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
they get as a result of it. ·


That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep
them
in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.


They gain life from it. Remember? Or did you unlearn that too?


We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them to
use as food.

They gain life from it, and you want very badly to PREVENT people
from considering that aspect. Remember? That's the main reason
for the hundreds or thousands of posts you've made to me, in your
attempts to make the lives of billions of animals appear to be
insignificant to me. Remember?


No, I am not concerned with preventing anyone except you from using The
Logic of the Larder, since in case you hadn't noticed virtually nobody but
you is using the argument, nor will they ever. It's stupid, circular
sophistry that I am quite sure most 10-year-olds could see through.

[···]
marked by suffering,
deprivation

[···]
it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.

[···]
and exploitation.

[···]
Exploitation is exploitation,

[···]
Only by consuming selectively,

Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can
deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can
deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals.


That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.


I was hoping you might somehow understand the second time. Let's
try it this way: How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute
to decent lives for farm animals, without consuming selectively?


That's what I said, idiot. Simply consuming does NOT "contribute to decent
lives for farm animals". Your false choice is presented as a/b, we can a)
"contribute to decent lives for farm animals" OR b) we can be vegans. In
order for that dichotomy to be logical a) must refer to simply consuming
animal products, not consuming selectively, because that *is* the opposite
of veganism. I fear however that you use this sophistry unconsciously and
don't even know what I'm saying. See again below..

simply consuming does not do that.

I never said it does.


It's implied in your position.


I am very curious to see how.


The paragraph right above explained it.

You are
pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
you
stop lying ****wit?

I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I
point
out.


You don't "point out truth"


If I were going to lie, I wouldn't say the things I do you stupid
moron. I'd say things that I thought would make people like me
better. You dumbass.


Would you? I think you have so much of your pride invested in the LoL now
that you can't let it go.

****wit, you spin a shabby sophistry.

For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:

1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.


Being born is not a benefit.


The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has
positive or negative value to the animal. How did you unlearn that?


I didn't. AW only applies *after* the fact.

2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.


Only if the animals are born.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?


They wouldn't need to, no issue.

3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.


No


Liar.

it would make it irrelevant.


Correct.

4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
contribute to their elimination.


Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
AW for farm animals, if the animals are never born?


They contribute to AW for the only ones that matter, the ones who *are*
born.

5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
some vegetable products.


There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute fewer wildlife
deaths and to decent lives for farm animals, if the animals are never
born?


See above.

with your
spinny rhetoric.

6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more
consideration
than their deaths.


"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?


See above.

7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.


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.


Explain how a farmer taking credit for the life of his favorite cow, is
analagous to him whoring out his daughter.


Farmer ****wit: "I gave my cow Betsy the life she now enjoys, that should
count for something against the fact I am going to kill her and eat her."

Father ****wit: "I gave my daughter Betsy the life she now enjoys, that
should count for something against the fact I am going to sell her to
pimps."

In both those cases the exploiter attempts to use the fact of *life* to
mount a justification for his actions. This attempt at self-justification is
not "consideration" for the animal/person, it's taking the exploitation to
another level, in effect adding insult to injury. This is not ethical
thinking.

Killing an animal for food is judged on it's own merits regardless if the
animal "lived". I judge it to be moral.

Pimping out your children is judged on it's own merits, regardless if the
child "lived", and I judge *that* to be immoral.

The fact the animal or the child "experienced life" because of some prior
action by you has no effect on those moral determinations.

We
raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.


When considering whether or not it's cruel to the animals to do so,
I will not attempt to avoid considering their life.


In doing so you are doing what the people in the examples above are doing.

[...]
4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less
support
for "AR" organizations.


I don't even understand that one.


You want me to kill myself because I point out the difference between
AW and "AR".


You don't point out anything useful, you spin self-serving sophistry.

The reason you want me to kill myself is because you
believe, as I do, that the vast majority of the financial support for
"AR"As
comes from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of
animal use. We agree about that.


That's right.

The difference is that I want people
to understand the difference, so they will stop contributing to your
elimination
objective. Of course, you do NOT want them to stop. You understood better
than I did before I explained it, and we both damn well know it. I
understand
that is the way it is, but don't understand why. You do understand why,
and
also why you created the situation.


I don't want people to stop contributing to PeTA because right now there are
not very many groups out there supporting the cause of animals. I am not
worried about the "elimination agenda" because it's a pipe dream. Martha
Stewart just signed on as a supporter of PeTA, that's a "good thing", she
doesn't support elimination, she cooks veal cutlets. The PeTA elimination
agenda is almost as out to lunch as your taking credit for their lives
agenda.

5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
deliberately
contribute to decent lives for food animals.


Those are not the only two options,


What's the other one?


Deliberately contributing to the lives of livestock by consuming animal
products, period, with no regard for their welfare, and/or including
consuming *with* regard for welfare. From a strict semantic point of view
*that* is the logical opposite to veganism. "Decent lives" introduces an
extraneous element which unbalances the comparison, and therefore it is
sophistry. You do it all the time, and god help you, I don't think you even
know you're doing it.

it's a fase choice fallacy.


[...]
Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very
easy
to
understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!


I didn't unlearn anything ****wit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.


Well, I don't really give a **** whether you consider it a moral
brownie
point or any other imaginary damn stupid thing. No brownie points. No
gold stars. No lollipops or any other stupid ass thing. How's that?


Excellent, then your position is lost, we can't "consider that the animal
experienced life" when we evaluate the use of animals as products.

Here is where you can't go, but I won't forget about it. The method of
husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative
value to the animal. That means TO THE ANIMAL you selfish *******.


I know, I said it.

Not to you. You are too selfish to understand the truth of your own
words, and Salt's imaginary singing pig was correct when it said in its
final moments:

It is not for their sake but for thine, that you would
rather prevent their lives than see them deliberately
provided with decent lives and humane deaths.


What's morally wrong with gag "preventing" livestock from existing? Every
farmer who adjusts his production to suit demand in a slow market does it.
Is he doing something immoral?


  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 10:19 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote


You "ARAs" decide


You know I'm not an ARA


How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.


You know I'm not an ARA ****wit, you know Jonathan Ball is not an ARA, you
know that our objections to your position have nothing to do with AR, admit
it and move on.


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 10:23 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:34:19 GMT, "Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills"

wrote:


So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.


you mean animals that are not conceived?


They are too stupid to take that into consideration


I acknowledged this clarification ****wit. When we talk about "being born",
we mean to come into existence, which more accurately refers to conception.
Jonathan has also agreed to this stipulation in the past, and you know it.
That doesn't change the fact that The Logic of the Larder is morally
reprehensible thinking, grow up and stop wasting everyone's time on it.




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 10:30 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them to
use as food.



Yeah and I would only eat vegetarian cows.


Michael Gordge

  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-09-2005, 11:03 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote

Dutch wrote:
We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them
to
use as food.



Yeah and I would only eat vegetarian cows.


Agreed, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is not my idea of fun.


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 12:12 AM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote


You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA


How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.


You know I'm not an ARA


Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us, which means
Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
[A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;

"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

In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"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

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

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."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 02:48 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote

You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA

How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.


You know I'm not an ARA


Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us,


Yes, they do.

which means
Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
[A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;


No, I'm not, not in the way he means it, i.e. I do NOT advocate the
elimination of animal farming.

You're deliberately obtuse Dreck, go away.


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 04:43 AM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote

You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA

How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.

You know I'm not an ARA


Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us,


Yes, they do.


Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
an ARA, liar Ditch.

which means
Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
[A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;


No, I'm not


Yes, you are, and snipping your quotes away
wont get you off the hook, either. Look at the
statement you wrote only a couple of days ago;

restore
"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

In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"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

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

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."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.
end restore

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
matters worse for you, liar Ditch.


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 03:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017