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
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 24 Sep 2005 09:52:44 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep 2005 06:14:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. wrote:


>> >> I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.
>> >
>> >The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support
>> >cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to
>> >support other forms of life.

>>
>> The grazing areas I've seen turned into something else have
>> always supported fewer animals, not more. They have become
>> housing areas, and businesses.

>
>I fundamentally dislike the attitude that land is simply an economic
>resource to be appropriated by humans.


It is though, regardless if you like it or not. It's only going to get
more so, so you need to accept that.

>To me it is the lifeblood of
>the planet, which we should be thrifty with.
>
>> >If you wish to take moral credit
>> >for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral
>> >debit for these lives that are prevented from existing.

>>
>> Then do vegans have to take moral debit for the lives that
>> are prevented too?

>
>If they take moral credit for the lives created as part of their
>lifestyle as you are doing.


I really just look at it as trying to consider all the aspects. To disregard
the lives of billions of animals when evaluating human influence on
animals seems pathetic, disgusting, inconsiderate, etc, to me, even if
I'm the only person on Earth who doesn't try to disregard them.

>> >BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount
>> >of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come
>> >back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze
>> >there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist!

>>
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>> (and death) for farm animals,

>
>True but what does this have to do with the issue at hand?


You would have to consider the lives of those animals to be
significant, in order to understand. If you can't see how they are
significant, how could you understand any significance they
have regarding human influence on animals?

>> but even then they would have
>> to avoid the following in order to be successful:
>>
>> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
>> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
>> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
>> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
>> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
>> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
>> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
>> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
>> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
>> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
>> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
>> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
>> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
>> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings

>
>It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, deoderants,
>biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably most
>of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At worst,
>it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the
>manufacture
>of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass?


I don't know. But I trust that the people who put the list together
do know or they wouldn't have made it. Actually that's from more
than one list. In order to convince me that there are no animal
by-products in those items you would need to tell me which animal
parts were used in which processes in the past and why, what they
have been replaced with and why, and what is now being done with
those by-products if they are really no longer being used in the
manufacturing processes of such products any more.

>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters,

>
>A calf is created as a result of a bull and a cow mating.
>No human intervention is necessary for this process to occur.


Are you saying you don't understand how humans influence
which cows are inseminated by which bulls? If you don't, it's
really pretty scary to think about people like you trying to have
an influence on farm animals. Wow, it is scary to think about
"ARAs" having an influence on farm animals. And medical
research. And...LOL...Animal Welfare...lol... Damn.

>> and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>> future.
>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>
>This may be true but a link Larry recently provided calls this into
>question. http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm
>
>"Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per hectare die in
>ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert half of the 120 million
>hectares of U.S. cropland to ruminant-pasture and half to growing
>vegetables, Davis claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of
>ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals annually in
>the process. Thus, Davis concludes his omnivorous proposal would save
>the lives of 450 million animals each year (p. 6-7).
>
>Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems-crops only and crops with
>ruminant-pasture-using the same total amount of land, would feed
>identical numbers of people (i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop
>and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare --
>the two systems would feed different numbers of people. To properly
>compare the harm caused by the two systems, we ought to calculate how
>many animals are killed in feeding equal populations-or the number of
>animals killed per consumer.
>
>Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
>production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).


I believe he's being a great deal overly generous with that estimate.
How do grazing cattle kill animals? Compare that to how farm machincery
kills animals. I hate to bog you down, but another thing to consider--or
maybe not in your case--is how much life is involved. Even though a much
higher percentage of animals are likely to be killed in crop fields than in
grazing areas, their numbers could still be low when much fewer animals
live in crop fields to begin with.

>If this
>is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many
>hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a
>vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop
>production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and
>one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount
>of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on
>as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as
>pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
>grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain
>the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a
>vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually,


I don't believe that, or the rest of it either. What I believe is that vegans
don't care if rice milk causes a lot more cds than grass raised milk, and
that tofu causes a lot more cds than grass raised beef.

>a
>lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style
>omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math,
>we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number
>of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population."
>
>I would be interested to read your response.


Cattle don't kill many animals by eating grass. Many animals are killed
when the ground it plowed, harrowed, planted, treated with chemicals,
the crops are harvested, and whatever wildlife manage to survive have
lost their home and shelter. In the case of rice, the flooding and draining
of fields also kills animals, as well as the other things mentioned.

>> >> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration
>> >> >is the real distortion of reality.
>> >>
>> >> I most certainly take them into consideration.
>> >
>> >So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence
>> >of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without
>> >human help?

>>
>> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
>> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
>> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
>> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
>> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
>> that begin their particular existence.

>
>The pairing of sperm and egg occurs as a result of sexual
>activities that do not require human intervention.


Have you figured out how humans influence life for any
animals yet?

>> Those animals will
>> only live if people continue to raise them for food.
>>
>> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
>> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
>> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
>> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
>> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
>> for their existence. ·

>
>The numbers of animals born to these other groups and the numbers
>of animals raised for food purposes are not seperate, independent
>variables


Here's a clue for you: domestic animals would not even
exist if humans didn't influence which animals breed together.

>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are
>> >considering the wrong eqaution.

>>
>> I consider more than one.

>
>OK.


Wow, that's a surprise.

>> >If some of the land used to graze
>> >cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in
>> >crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably
>> >result in more wildlife in total.

>>
>> That's not how it goes. When the land isn't grazed it is used to
>> grow crops resulting in less wildlife, or paved over and built on
>> resulting in even less. Since that's how it goes, that's how I think
>> about it.

>
>The way I think about it is rather like voting. On the individual level
>it makes little difference but on the collective level it matters a
>great
>deal. The attitude I have is that we should be thrifty with our land
>use
>and allow nature her fair share.


$$$

>> >YMMD.
>> >
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any
>> >ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your
>> >premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a
>> >loan to its farmer.

>>
>> I think of decent lives as decent lives, including the lives of
>> humans, domestic animals and wildlife. For some reason other
>> people don't do it that way, but that's how I do it, and so far no
>> one has suggested a better way yet.

>
>It is a very good way of doing things. What I take issue with is the
>idea that the cows owe their lives to the farmer.


Well they do. So do pigs and chickens. And turkeys. If you
don't like the fact, it is still a fact which you just don't happen
to like. It won't go away though. It will never go away. Even
if I learn to hate it myself--which so far it's just a fact to me which
I don't especially like or hate--it will still remain a fact, and I sure
hope I will always be able to appreciate that very basic and
very significant aspect of human influence on animals. Accepting
the fact is a very necessary basic in regards to whether or not
what we do is cruel to the animals, and I know it is. I'm very
surprised and disappointed at the number of people who don't.
  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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, dhld.


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. 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 found that
whenever he cleared the rainforest, the rain washed the fertility from 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 and 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
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
It goes on about more detail, and there's a lot more about slash and burn
available other places if you care to check it out.

>Feeding the world would be easier but
>B12 deficiencies might become endemic amongst those populations too
>poor to afford supplements.
>
>>From the above perspectives, the addition of handline-caught fish,

>forest game meat, wild birds eggs and honey can be justified in
>moderation. Possibly there are also some marginal lands that would
>be better used for animals than for crops.


I'm very convinced that last statement is true.

>I am still open-minded about humanely reared farm animals. They
>do seem to represent a rather inefficient way of extracting land
>from food but of course they provide wool and leather as well.
>Anything else?


Sure. I still believe they contribute to the items in the list I
provided. Let's not forget fertilizer. And of course, they do
contribute to the lives of billions of animals that no one else
appears to consider.

>Also in mixed agriculture systems animals can be used
>to weed, plough and fertilize the land. Ducks can also help control
>slugs in an environmentally responsible manner. At the moment I have
>far more questions than answers. I am basically thinking out loud.
>
>One thing that has just occured to me about GFCs is that, unless
>I am mistaken, they eat hay during the winter. Did Mr Davis consider
>the deaths caused by the harvesting and storage of this hay?


Here it is:
__________________________________________________ _______
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.

Introduction
Although the debate over the moral status of animals has been
going on for thousands of years (Shapiro, 2000), there has
been a resurgence of interest in this issue in the last quarter of
the 20th century. One of the landmark philosophical works of
this period was the book by Regan (1983) called "A Case for
Animal Rights." In that book, Regan concludes that animals
do have moral standing, that they are subjects-of-a-life with
interests that deserve equal consideration to the same interests
in humans, and therefore have the right to live their lives
without human interference. As a consequence, he concludes
that humans have a moral obligation to consume a vegan (use
no animal products) diet and eliminate animal agriculture.
However, production of an all vegan diet also comes at the
cost of the lives of many animals, including mice, moles,
gophers, pheasants, etc. Therefore, I asked Regan, "What
is the morally relevant difference between killing a field mouse
(or other animal of the field) so that humans may eat and killing
a pig (or chicken, calf or lamb) for the same purpose? Animals
must die so that humans may eat, regardless whether they eat
a vegan diet or not. So, how are we to choose our food supply
in a morally responsible manner?" Regan's response could be
summarized by what may be called the "Least Harm Principle"
or LHP (Regan, Personal Communication). According to LHP,
we must choose the food products that, overall, cause the
least harm to the least number of animals. The following
analysis is an attempt to try to determine what humans should
eat if we apply that principle.

Regan's Vegan Conclusion is Problematic

I find Regan's response to my question to be problematic for
two reasons. The first reason is because it seems to be a
philosophical slight of hand for one to turn to a utilitarian
defense (LHP) of a challenge to his vegan conclusion which
is based on animal rights theory. If the question, "What is
the morally relevant difference?" can't be supported by the
animal rights theory, then it seems to me that the animal rights
theory must be rejected. Instead, Regan turns to utilitarian
theory (which examines consequences of one's actions) to
defend the vegan conclusion.

The second problem I see with his vegan conclusion is that
he claims that the least harm would be done to animals if
animal agriculture was eliminated. It may certainly be true
that fewer animals may be killed if animal agriculture was
eliminated, but could the LHP also lead to other alternative
conclusions?

Would pasture-based animal agriculture cause least harm?

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows
and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground
cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed
by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow,
disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest,
etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such
as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet)
kills far more animals of the field than would extensive
agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage
was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines.
So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing
beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead
of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan.

Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available, but Tew
and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse
population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha
preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease
was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality.
Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of
10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean
production.

There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US
(USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a
plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed
per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or
1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet. If half
of that land (60 million) was converted to forage
production and if forage production systems decreased
the number of animals of the field killed per year by 50%
(5 per year per ha), the number of animals killed would be:

1. 60 million ha of traditional agriculture x 10 animals
per ha = 0.6 billion animals killed.
2. 60 million ha of forage production x 5 animals of
the field = 0.3 billion.

Therefore, in this hypothetical example, the change to
include some forage-based animal agriculture would
result in the loss of only 0.9 billion animals of the field
instead of 1.2 billion to support a vegan diet. As a
result, the LHP would suggest that we are morally
obligated to consume a diet of ruminant products, not
a vegan diet, because it would result in the death of
fewer animals of the field.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to
die to feed people? According to the USDA numbers
quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion animals
killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those
are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows,
calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of
ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace
the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that
would need to be killed under this alternative would
still be fewer (0.9 billion + 82 million = 0.982 billion)
than in the vegan alternative (1.2 billion).

In conclusion, applying the Least Harm Principle as
proposed by Regan would actually argue that we
are morally obligated to move to a ruminant-based
diet rather than a vegan diet.

References

Davis, S.L. 2000. What is the Morally Relevant
Difference between the Mouse and the Pig?
Pp. 107-109 in the Proceedings of EurSafe 2000;
2nd Congress of the European Society for
Agricultural and Food Ethics.

Francione, Gary L. 2000. Introduction to Animal
Rights: Your child or the dog? Temple University
Press. Philadelphia.

Regan, Tom. 1983. A Case for Animal Rights.
University of California Press, Berkeley.

Shapiro, L.S. 2000. Applied Animal Ethics,
pp. 34-37. Delmar Press.

Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald. 1993. The
effects of harvest on arable wood mice.
Biological Conservation 65:279-283.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 24 Sep 2005 16:01:23 -0700, wrote:

>
wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>> ... Maybe
>> > you agree with him, but to me these "ARAs" are incredible
>> > freaks.

>>
>> Worse than that they are scum,


Yes. Inconsiderate, dishonest scum.

>> even though their intent may be good.


I never cease to wonder about that, but can't give them
credit because so far I don't believe their elimination objective
would help the animals they're trying to eliminate.

>> And no I dont agree with any concept which has no basis in *reality*.
>> eg animal rights, in reality animals dont have rights, animal rights
>> are the invention of communist inspired fools.
>>
>> Humans have rights animals dont. How an animal is treated is up to the
>> owner of that animal.
>>
>> If dh@. wants to care for animals, then dh@. ought buy the ones he
>> wants to care for


People don't necessarily have to buy the animals. They can
contribute to more in the future, by purchasing specific products
today. For example: when they purchase cage free eggs today,
they are contributing to more hens in cage free environments in
the future. You're right about the direct hands on approach too,
but so far I haven't found anyone who cares about even
deliberately contributing to decent lives for animals through the
food they buy, much less getting involved directly in making it
happen. People *could* do things like that, and I've pointed out
examples to these "AR" freaks, but that sort of thing is something
they are extremely opposed to. They want the animals done
away with, *not!* provided with decent lives, and they will damn
well assure you there's nothing wrong with that.

>> and then claim a property right on them, so as that
>> he and he alone an determine how they are treated.
>>
>> My personal view on the treatment of humans and other animals is, I
>> dont like to see humans treated like animals and or the same reason I
>> dont like seeing animals treated like humans.
>>
>> The fact is, the more society treats animals like humans the closer
>> that society is getting to treating humans like animals. eg witness
>> socialism.
>>
>>
>> Michael Gordge

>
>appologies dh@. you do realise I was referring to the animal rights
>clown.


What we contribute to is what's most important. "ARAs" know
that, do *not!* want people to deliberately contribute to decent
lives, and are left to insist how much better it would be to do
nothing....go vegan.... They even lie about it. This was directed
at children:
__________________________________________________ _______
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!

http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
the lying *******s. But if they can get the kids to believe the
lies, they have them for years and possibly for life. I am
convinced that "ARAs" take direct advantage of cognitive
dissonance in that way.
  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:37:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote
>>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
>>> > weird.
>>>
>>> No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic animal
>>> has
>>> a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse.

>>
>> Oh really, so where do you draw the line? Surely *death* is the
>> ultimate *abuse*!!

>
>No it isn't,


You consider them to be purely exploited. What do you consider to be
a greater abuse than their death?

>since we are omnivorous animals it is not per se abusive to
>kill other animals for food.


It could be considered so if you could develop any consideration
for the animals. But then again their lives could become significant
to you if you could develop any consideration for the animals. LOL
....it's kind of funny to think about that last, isn't Dutch?


  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:32:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>No, if people eat meat THEN they should "contribute to decent lives for
>livestock",


Why do you feel that people should avoid considering the
animals' lives when deciding what to eat?

>if they don't


--which is what "ARAs" want--

>then the advice does not apply to them. I have
>absolutely no preference as to whether people are vegetarians or meat
>eaters,


Of course I believe that's a lie.

>it's none of my business. The fact that you do makes you a fool.


You participating in ngs about human influence on animals, when
you don't give a damn about human influence on animals, could
cause a person to view you as a fool, or a moron, or more likely
both as well as being a dishonest Goobal "ARA". You're always
supporting elimination.



  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:09:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On 23 Sep 2005 07:39:37 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote:
>>
>>>> It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue
>>>
>>>1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their
>>>minds because of the Law of Derek

>>
>> The problem isn't that he's changed his mind, the
>> problem is that he keeps changing it back and forth
>> while at the same time criticising those who do
>> promote animal rights genuinely.

>
>That's a lie, and you know it.


You favor people becoming vegan over them deliberately
contributing to decent lives for food animals. That alone is
enough to put you on crew "AR". You're an "ARA" and now
everyone knows it, so just admit it and move on from there.
It will help you be a less disgusting person Dutch. Don't you
want to just be honest sometimes, so you don't have to keep
on making shit up ALL the time?

Do it.
  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>>
>> Everything isn't dependent on socialists coming out of the woodwork,

>
> Animal rights, social contract, we, the greater good etal, are ALL
> scummy socialist terms.


You're an idiot.

>> Which value don't you like?

>
> ALL those which require the *initiation of force* (VICE) or the
> *threatened* initiation of physical force to comply with, eg animal
> rights and ANY and ALL THINGS socialist, how about you Dutch?


Every value that you hold dear is maintained by the treat of force, i.e.
laws.

> FREEDOM, requires NO FORCE, one can only violate another human beings
> FREEDOM.


Your freedom implies restrictions on others and vise versa.

> Do you understand that Dutch?


I do, but you apparently don't.

> FREEDOM to choose and live according to YOUR own values and allowing
> others to choose and live according to their own values, what is wrong,
> what is bad, what is not practical, what is immoral about that Dutch?


What's wrong is that it's simplistic nonsense. The ability of your daughter
to take her dog for a walk depends on the threat of prosecution on anyone
who violates that freedom by assaulting them.

> I regard *human life* as the standard of moral value, how about you
> Dutch?


More simplistic nonsense. That sentence is rhetoric.

> What is your standard of moral value Dutch?


"standard of moral value" is a meaningless term. You don't get to make up
rhetoric and get expect others to make sense of it.

> HOW do YOU know, how to YOU judge, determinem if, the values and
> actions you choose for yourself, are *moral*?


*That's* not a bad question. I resolve my personal assessment of any action
against the specific situation, as well as sanctions, laws and taboos that
may exist.

> ONLY YOU exist Dutch, ONLY YOU can choose YOUR actions.


If only I existed none of this would matter because my actions wouldn't
affect anyone else.

You should learn to cut the rhetoric and respond thoughtfully instead of
with angry rhetoric.


  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> No? You said that any right of an animal must come at the price of the
>> right
>> of a human.

>
> I said, to enforce a so called animal right, requires the violation of
> property rights of humans.


Most property can't suffer pain or deprivation, that's why laws
differentiate between inert property and sentient animals and why more and
more laws are being introduced that clarify this distinction. Animals are
property, yes, but they aren't *merely* property. There's no supportable
reason why moral people can't respect the basic needs of animals. People
argued for a long time for the freedom to abuse their children on the basis
of property rights. That freedom is almost completely gone, and it's a good
thing.

> THINK about this Dutch.
>
> You are alone on a desert Island, your name is Robinson, one day you
> look over the hill and see another human being, you name him Friday,
> you note over a period of time, that Friday has some excellent ideas
> and has in his posession items that would benefit your life
> substanially, indeed may even save your life.
>
> HOWEVER one day you find Friday beating the living shit out of his dog.
>
>
> Problem, what are you going to do to stop him, while at the same time
> trying not to upset him, because you know he may never share his ideas
> with you, he may leave and take all his possessions with him, after
> all, it IS his dog?


I would intervene to stop the assault if I could, until Friday's temper
cooled off. If that meant he picked up and moved to another part of the
island, so be it. In the real world I don't need the companionship of animal
abusers.

Anyway Mike, I am getting bored with you, you seem like a complete
knucklehead, unless you raise your game soon I'm going to killfile you.


  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:37:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote
>>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
>>>> > weird.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic animal
>>>> has
>>>> a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse.
>>>
>>> Oh really, so where do you draw the line? Surely *death* is the
>>> ultimate *abuse*!!

>>
>>No it isn't,

>
> You consider them to be purely exploited.


Yes, raising an animal for food is exploitation of that animal, by
definition.

> What do you consider to be
> a greater abuse than their death?


Killing an animal for food is not abuse at all, it's just aquiring food.
That's where you fail so miserably here, you fall into the AR rhetoric.

>>since we are omnivorous animals it is not per se abusive to
>>kill other animals for food.

>
> It could be considered so if you could develop any consideration
> for the animals.


If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're an ARA and
you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you for years.

> But then again their lives could become significant
> to you if you could develop any consideration for the animals. LOL
> ...it's kind of funny to think about that last, isn't Dutch?


The way you think is not funny, it's pitiful.


  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:32:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>No, if people eat meat THEN they should "contribute to decent lives for
>>livestock",

>
> Why do you feel that people should avoid considering the
> animals' lives when deciding what to eat?


They shouldn't "avoid" it, they just don't do it, nobody thinks that way,
it's ridiculous. You are trying to propose a completely foreign and bizarre
way of thinking. "I should eat hamburgers so that more cows can get to
experience life." You're wasting your time pushing The Logic of the Larder,
it's BULLshit.

>>if they don't

>
> --which is what "ARAs" want--


So what?

>>then the advice does not apply to them. I have
>>absolutely no preference as to whether people are vegetarians or meat
>>eaters,

>
> Of course I believe that's a lie.


No you don't.

>>it's none of my business. The fact that you do makes you a fool.

>
> You participating in ngs about human influence on animals, when
> you don't give a damn about human influence on animals, could
> cause a person to view you as a fool, or a moron, or more likely
> both as well as being a dishonest Goobal "ARA". You're always
> supporting elimination.


Shut up David, do the world a favour.




  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Shut up ****wit, EVERYONE knows you're an idiot.


  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> "standard of moral value" is a meaningless term.


The sort of nonsense one expects from a socialist.

So your OWN values are not based upon any moral principles?

Your actions your morals dont have your own standard to judge them
against?

> > HOW do YOU know, how to YOU judge, determinem if, the values and
> > actions you choose for yourself, are *moral*?

>
> *That's* not a bad question.


Oh so *having a moral standard* to judge your actions, has merit now?
FFS make up your mind.

> I resolve my personal assessment of any action
> against the specific situation, as well as sanctions, laws and taboos that
> may exist.


So WHAT standard are you using to make that assessment?

HOW do you *know* if your assessment is right or wrong?

Right or wrong according to what standard?

What standard are you using to determine if a particular law is good or
bad, right or wrong?



Michael Gordge

  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

> Most property can't suffer pain or deprivation, that's why laws
> differentiate between inert property and sentient animals and why more and
> more laws are being introduced that clarify this distinction.


NO, more and more bullshit laws are being invented, just like more and
more lies have to be invented to cover the first lie. Here see what I
mean

> Animals are
> property, yes, but they aren't *merely* property.


Either an animal is property or it isn't.

> There's no supportable
> reason why moral people can't respect the basic needs of animals.


HOW do YOU judge what is or is not a moral person?

What *standard* are you making that judgement against?

> I would intervene to stop the assault if I could, until Friday's temper
> cooled off.


You purposely dropped context, I asked what if Friday had items or
ideas that could save your life?


Michael Gordge

BTW I expected you to run away well before now, I suspect you are about
to any minute now, as I am getting to the very roots of your evil anti
human philosophy, aren't I, ****ing socialism.

You are being challenged to prove your ideas have any basis in reality,
in nature and ewe dont like it. Typical scummy socialist, issue
avoiding, context dropping coward.

You think, you hope, ewe wish, that by kill-filing reality it will go
away, in your dreams buster, freedom fighters are on the march.

You kill-file me for no other reason than you cant explain or define
the *standard* by which you judge your own actions.

  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 "Doutche" wrote:

>
>Shut up

[...]

Do it.

  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:56:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:37:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
>>>>> > weird.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic animal
>>>>> has
>>>>> a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse.
>>>>
>>>> Oh really, so where do you draw the line? Surely *death* is the
>>>> ultimate *abuse*!!
>>>
>>>No it isn't,

>>
>> You consider them to be purely exploited.

>
>Yes, raising an animal for food is exploitation of that animal, by
>definition.


Is it somehow exploitation with no abuse involved at all? Explain.

>> What do you consider to be
>> a greater abuse than their death?

>
>Killing an animal for food is not abuse at all,


What do you consider to be a greater abuse than their death?

>it's just aquiring food.
>That's where you fail so miserably here, you fall into the AR rhetoric.
>
>>>since we are omnivorous animals it is not per se abusive to
>>>kill other animals for food.

>>
>> It could be considered so if you could develop any consideration
>> for the animals.

>
>If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're an ARA


What a retarded statement. You're pretty much an endless supply
of retarded statements, absurd ideas, and "analogous" grotesquerys.

>and you should become a vegan.


There you go again.

>I've been saying that to you for years.


You have been encouraging "AR" and veganism for years, I must
of course agree with you about that.

>> But then again their lives could become significant
>> to you if you could develop any consideration for the animals. LOL
>> ...it's kind of funny to think about that last, isn't Dutch?

>
>The way you think is not funny,


Thinking about you "ARAs" ever having consideration for the
lives of food animals is funny...

>it's pitiful.


....yes, in a pitiful way, but it's still funny.


  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Shut up ****wit, you're an idiot.


  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:56:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:37:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
>>>>>> > weird.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic
>>>>>> animal
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh really, so where do you draw the line? Surely *death* is the
>>>>> ultimate *abuse*!!
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't,
>>>
>>> You consider them to be purely exploited.

>>
>>Yes, raising an animal for food is exploitation of that animal, by
>>definition.

>
> Is it somehow exploitation with no abuse involved at all? Explain.


Yes, it's exploitation regardless of abuse. It's the meaning of the word
exploitation, moron.

>>> What do you consider to be
>>> a greater abuse than their death?

>>
>>Killing an animal for food is not abuse at all,

>
> What do you consider to be a greater abuse than their death?


Killing an animal for food is NOT abuse AT ALL. To say so is to cave into AR
thinking.

>>it's just aquiring food.
>>That's where you fail so miserably here, you fall into the AR rhetoric.
>>
>>>>since we are omnivorous animals it is not per se abusive to
>>>>kill other animals for food.
>>>
>>> It could be considered so if you could develop any consideration
>>> for the animals.

>>
>>If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're an ARA

>
> What a retarded statement. You're pretty much an endless supply
> of retarded statements, absurd ideas, and "analogous" grotesquerys.


Non-responsive. If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then
you're an ARA.

>
>>and you should become a vegan.

>
> There you go again.
>
>>I've been saying that to you for years.

>
> You have been encouraging "AR" and veganism for years, I must
> of course agree with you about that.


If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're an ARA.

>>> But then again their lives could become significant
>>> to you if you could develop any consideration for the animals. LOL
>>> ...it's kind of funny to think about that last, isn't Dutch?

>>
>>The way you think is not funny,

>
> Thinking about you "ARAs" ever having consideration for the
> lives of food animals is funny...


If you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're an ARA


>
>>it's pitiful.

>
> ...yes, in a pitiful way, but it's still funny.


Yes, if you think it's abusive to kill an animal for food then you're an
ARA.

That's you ****wit, a twisted, pathetic self-loathing ARA,


  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "standard of moral value" is a meaningless term.

>
> The sort of nonsense one expects from a socialist.


Yawn... checked your closet lately? I'll bet there's some commies hiding in
there..
>
> So your OWN values are not based upon any moral principles?


You didn't ask about "moral principles", you posed an incoherent question
using the term "standard of moral value" which makes no sense.

> Your actions your morals dont have your own standard to judge them
> against?


What?

>> > HOW do YOU know, how to YOU judge, determinem if, the values and
>> > actions you choose for yourself, are *moral*?

>>
>> *That's* not a bad question.

>
> Oh so *having a moral standard* to judge your actions, has merit now?


That's a different phrase, slightly more comprehensible...

> FFS make up your mind.


FFS, stop moving the goalposts, if you want to make up ****witted phrases
like "standard of moral value" don't expect that people are going to bend
over backwards to figure out what the **** you're talking about.

>> I resolve my personal assessment of any action
>> against the specific situation, as well as sanctions, laws and taboos
>> that
>> may exist.

>
> So WHAT standard are you using to make that assessment?


What "standard"? You want me to place a label on it? My standard of morality
could be called modern Judeo-Christian with a belief in equality of women,
protection of children, workers, and protection of animals from abusers, to
sum it up briefly.

> HOW do you *know* if your assessment is right or wrong?


I evaluate it against the standards that I see being used by others, other
countries, and by the society at-large, and measure using the sense of
compassion, fairness and reasonableness that I have been taught all my life.

How about you?

> Right or wrong according to what standard?
>
> What standard are you using to determine if a particular law is good or
> bad, right or wrong?


See above. Now what's your moral compass?



  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> Most property can't suffer pain or deprivation, that's why laws
>> differentiate between inert property and sentient animals and why more
>> and
>> more laws are being introduced that clarify this distinction.

>
> NO, more and more bullshit laws are being invented, just like more and
> more lies have to be invented to cover the first lie. Here see what I
> mean


What lies? Be specific Mikey.

>> Animals are
>> property, yes, but they aren't *merely* property.

>
> Either an animal is property or it isn't.


That's true, some animals are not property of anyone, but it doesn't change
the fact that animals are *more* than simple property, they come with a
moral obligation attached, to provide decent care and respite from abuse.
Why do you have a problem with that concept?

>> There's no supportable
>> reason why moral people can't respect the basic needs of animals.

>
> HOW do YOU judge what is or is not a moral person?


How does anyone? You use the moral compass that you have aquired over a
lifetime.

> What *standard* are you making that judgement against?


See my previous post.

>> I would intervene to stop the assault if I could, until Friday's temper
>> cooled off.

>
> You purposely dropped context,


Bullshit Mikey, I didn't drop anything, and you have a lot of gall talking
about snipping, your posts are full of unnoted snips.

> I asked what if Friday had items or
> ideas that could save your life?


Your theoretical "Robinson Carusoe" scenario is asinine Mikey, but for the
record, sure I'd consider my own survival if that was an issue. What
survival issue is generally involved in the abuse of animals?

> Michael Gordge
>
> BTW I expected you to run away well before now, I suspect you are about
> to any minute now, as I am getting to the very roots of your evil anti
> human philosophy, aren't I, ****ing socialism.


Good call, it probably happens to you a lot, but not for the reasons you
suggest. When I killfile you it will because you are an ill-mannered jarhead
with nothing of value to offer and no indication that you're likely to
change.

> You are being challenged to prove your ideas have any basis in reality,
> in nature and ewe dont like it. Typical scummy socialist, issue
> avoiding, context dropping coward.


There's those commies in the closet again, better watch your back...

> You think, you hope, ewe wish, that by kill-filing reality it will go
> away, in your dreams buster, freedom fighters are on the march.


ROTFL! What a delusional dickwad you are.

> You kill-file me for no other reason than you cant explain or define
> the *standard* by which you judge your own actions.


Already done...


  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> What lies? Be specific Mikey.


Tax is not theft, being just one lie the scabby parasites repeat.

The greater good, another

Social contract, another

Animal rights, yet another

How many do ewe want?


> That's true, some animals are not property of anyone, but it doesn't change
> the fact that animals are *more* than simple property, they come with a
> moral obligation attached,


Oh Really so you've seen a mouse tell a cat to **** off? you TWIT, stop
telling lies, stop making things up.


> > HOW do YOU judge what is or is not a moral person?

>
> How does anyone?


Simple, by stating the *standard* by which they judge the actions of
the person against.

I gave you my standard of moral value *HUMAN LIFE*, that I measure my
actions against.

What do YOU measure YOUR actions against, what standard are you using
to KNOW if your actions are moral?

>
> Your theoretical "Robinson Carusoe" scenario is asinine Mikey, but for the
> record, sure I'd consider my own survival if that was an issue.


So explain, HOW - WHAT would you do to attempt to stop Friday from
abusing his dog, while at the same time keeping in mind that Friday has
something you need?


Michael Gordge



  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Diogenes
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is awesome, my parents didn't argue like this. Michael Gordge, you
are an inflamed idiot. Take some Midol and go to bed.

  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Diogenes wrote:
> This is awesome, my parents didn't argue like this. Michael Gordge, you
> are an inflamed idiot. Take some Midol and go to bed.


Oh gawd not another mystic!!

What is it with you goooses, instead of attacking the player why not
play the ball, (the subject) I dont give a **** that you attack me
personally, it makes your position look even weaker than it is.


Michael Gordge

  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> What lies? Be specific Mikey.

>
> Tax is not theft, being just one lie the scabby parasites repeat.


So you don't want roads, an army, laws... ok

> The greater good, another
>
> Social contract, another
>
> Animal rights, yet another
>
> How many do ewe want?


I see, you don't believe in arresting or locking up armed robbers, murderers
or pedophiles... ok

>> That's true, some animals are not property of anyone, but it doesn't
>> change
>> the fact that animals are *more* than simple property, they come with a
>> moral obligation attached,

>
> Oh Really so you've seen a mouse tell a cat to **** off? you TWIT, stop
> telling lies, stop making things up.


Moral obligations only apply to moral agents, humans.

>> > HOW do YOU judge what is or is not a moral person?

>>
>> How does anyone?

>
> Simple, by stating the *standard* by which they judge the actions of
> the person against.
>
> I gave you my standard of moral value *HUMAN LIFE*, that I measure my
> actions against.


Then why don't you arrest murderers? Since your perfect world has no taxes
and no police..

> What do YOU measure YOUR actions against, what standard are you using
> to KNOW if your actions are moral?


It's not simplistic nonsense like *HUMAN LIFE*.

>> Your theoretical "Robinson Carusoe" scenario is asinine Mikey, but for
>> the
>> record, sure I'd consider my own survival if that was an issue.

>
> So explain, HOW - WHAT would you do to attempt to stop Friday from
> abusing his dog, while at the same time keeping in mind that Friday has
> something you need?


I might get his attention, then ask to talk to him, then reason with him. In
the case of animal abusers in the 'real world' they already know it's wrong,
so I'd call the authorities who would simply confiscate the animal and lay
charges.


  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Diogenes wrote:
>> This is awesome, my parents didn't argue like this. Michael Gordge, you
>> are an inflamed idiot. Take some Midol and go to bed.

>
> Oh gawd not another mystic!!


Are you sure he's not a socialist?

> What is it with you goooses, instead of attacking the player why not
> play the ball, (the subject) I dont give a **** that you attack me
> personally, it makes your position look even weaker than it is.


This whole "angry guy" shtick is really tired Mike. Why don't you try
behaving like a human being? If you show some respect you might get a little
in return.


  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> Are you sure he's not a socialist?


Indeed! It would only be by chance that he's not, however the evidence
is that he is.

> ....... If you show some respect you might get a little
> in return.


The ****en ignorance audacity and arrogance of you ****en unthinking
socialist pricks is sickening. How dare a ****en socialist suggest I
show respect to a ****en socialist.

ANY form of Socialism IS the most disrespectful philosophy known to
man, it is a philosophy founded by, albeit well intentioned, ****en
idiotic anti human life ****en nonsense.

I am NOT the one *inventing* laws, I am NOT the one threatening to send
peaceful people, (peaceful person I define as, the person whose actions
are not a danger nor an immediate iminent threat to another peaceful
person or their property) to jail because they refuse to abide by the
immoral values of morons.

*I* am an adovate of private property rights, I advocate that what YOU
earn belongs to you, I advocate that YOU and YOU alone are responsible
for YOUR actions, 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), I am an advocate of the idea that
*the initiation of physical force* against peaceful people is immoral.

How dare you, your philosophy is evil, it IS the philosophy based upon
lies, there is NOTHING about YOUR philosophy that is peaceful. There is
NOTHING about your philosophy that is possble without the threat of
violence being used against peaceful people, and you have the gawl to
call me disrespectul, farcanal, ewe take the cake ewe do.


Michael Gordge



  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

> See above. Now what's your moral compass?


I've already told you Dutch, however I am happy to tell you again,
because something said often enough eventually is understood.

Human life. I hold human life as the standard of moral value.

Let me explain, only human *individuals* exist (society is the name
given to a collection of human individuals), values are the objects of
an *individuals* actions, values are what an *individual* seeks to keep
or gain.

The fact that others may share those same values, (no matter how big
that mob is) does NOT mean they then have a right to FORCE those values
upon those who may choose different.

Yes thats right Dutch, I even believe in the right that YOU have, to be
a ****en stupid idiotic masochist and a sadist (a socialist), HOWEVER
ONLY with other like minded ****wits.

So long as you all *freely choose* YOUR OWN values, then thats just
fine by me. If you are not living according to YOUR own self chosen
values then you are living according to the values of others chosen for
you.

I hold the right to life, property and the pursuit of happeness for a
human individual as sacrosanct. The right for peaceful human beings to
pursue their own values, WHY? because it is THEIR life.


Michael Gordge

  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> ranted mindlessly

Shut up Mikey, go get an enema or something.


  #148 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> See above. Now what's your moral compass?

>
> I've already told you Dutch, however I am happy to tell you again,
> because something said often enough eventually is understood.
>
> Human life. I hold human life as the standard of moral value.


Meaningless.. there are countless ways to violate a person's rights without
threatening their life.

> Let me explain, only human *individuals* exist (society is the name
> given to a collection of human individuals), values are the objects of
> an *individuals* actions, values are what an *individual* seeks to keep
> or gain.
>
> The fact that others may share those same values, (no matter how big
> that mob is) does NOT mean they then have a right to FORCE those values
> upon those who may choose different.


So we shouldn't force rapists and thieves to abide by the laws/values which
prohibit/condemn those activities? You aren't making sense.

> Yes thats right Dutch, I even believe in the right that YOU have, to be
> a ****en stupid idiotic masochist and a sadist (a socialist), HOWEVER
> ONLY with other like minded ****wits.
>
> So long as you all *freely choose* YOUR OWN values, then thats just
> fine by me. If you are not living according to YOUR own self chosen
> values then you are living according to the values of others chosen for
> you.


If I choose to kidnap your children and molest them then that's fine by you?

> I hold the right to life, property and the pursuit of happeness for a
> human individual as sacrosanct. The right for peaceful human beings to
> pursue their own values, WHY? because it is THEIR life.


What about the obligation to respect the rights of others? No person
deserves to have their rights upheld if they don't do likewise for others.
That's what a social contract is. You're only looking at one side of the
equation.


  #149 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> Are you sure he's not a socialist?

>
> Indeed! It would only be by chance that he's not, however the evidence
> is that he is.


Figured..

>> ....... If you show some respect you might get a little
>> in return.

>
> The ****en ignorance audacity and arrogance of you ****en unthinking
> socialist pricks is sickening. How dare a ****en socialist suggest I
> show respect to a ****en socialist.


I'm not a socialist.

> ANY form of Socialism IS the most disrespectful philosophy known to
> man, it is a philosophy founded by, albeit well intentioned, ****en
> idiotic anti human life ****en nonsense.


What an articulate man you are.

> I am NOT the one *inventing* laws, I am NOT the one threatening to send
> peaceful people, (peaceful person I define as, the person whose actions
> are not a danger nor an immediate iminent threat to another peaceful
> person or their property) to jail because they refuse to abide by the
> immoral values of morons.
>
> *I* am an adovate of private property rights, I advocate that what YOU
> earn belongs to you, I advocate that YOU and YOU alone are responsible
> for YOUR actions, 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), I am an advocate of the idea that
> *the initiation of physical force* against peaceful people is immoral.


There's nothing peaceful about abusing an animal.

> How dare you, your philosophy is evil, it IS the philosophy based upon
> lies, there is NOTHING about YOUR philosophy that is peaceful. There is
> NOTHING about your philosophy that is possble without the threat of
> violence being used against peaceful people, and you have the gawl to
> call me disrespectul, farcanal, ewe take the cake ewe do.


If the law of the land said that you were someone else's property and so
could be made to work 16 hours a day with no pay, would you respect those
property rights?

If the law of the land said that women and children were property, and
allowed men to kill their wives or sell their children into slavery with
impunity if they saw fit, would you stand against it? Would you try to stop
it or would you respect the property rights of other men?

In case you didn't notice, these are both real examples from our own
history. People who are afraid of "inventing laws" are not the people who
should be admired in this world.




  #150 (permalink)   Report Post  
Diogenes
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey mike, you got your panties all up in a bunch over some little old
socialist like me. The fact of the matter is, vegetarians are not
hippocrites, and personal property is a matter of possesion. If I take
it from you it becomes mine. If that's the case, who's going to protect
you. You're too busy washing your vagina.



  #151 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> I'm not a socialist.


There's none so blind as he who doesn't want to see.

> What an articulate man you are.


What the ****s the way I speak got to do with ewe being a dopey ****en
socialist, who only thinks his values are better than a animal beaters?

Whats the ****en difference between a socialist threatening to send a
peaceful person to jail for noncompliance of an invented law eg
taxation, and an animal beater?

NOTHING.

>
> There's nothing peaceful about abusing an animal.


Oh so you've been able to explain to a dog that biting off the leg of a
child is a bad idea have you?

Your pussy now leaves mice alone because you've talked to your pussy
about animal rights?

WHY do YOU need a law to stop YOU from beating animals Dutch?

Off topic strawman nonsense snipped, I have already told you moron,
that I hold *human life* as the standard of *moral value*, I have also
told you what a value is.


Michael Gordge

  #152 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> I'm not a socialist.

>
> There's none so blind as he who doesn't want to see.


Articulate and original. I'm not a socialist.

>> What an articulate man you are.

>
> What the ****s the way I speak got to do with ewe being a dopey ****en
> socialist, who only thinks his values are better than a animal beaters?


Aren't yours?

> Whats the ****en difference between a socialist threatening to send a
> peaceful person to jail for noncompliance of an invented law eg
> taxation, and an animal beater?
>
> NOTHING.


What's peaceful about beating an animal?

>> There's nothing peaceful about abusing an animal.

>
> Oh so you've been able to explain to a dog that biting off the leg of a
> child is a bad idea have you?


Oh, you've been able to stop a dog from being vicious by beating it have
you?

If a dog bites a child I would kill the dog, not beat it.

> Your pussy now leaves mice alone because you've talked to your pussy
> about animal rights?


Don't be an idiot.

> WHY do YOU need a law to stop YOU from beating animals Dutch?


I don't abuse animals, the question is why you think people need the right
to do so.

> Off topic strawman nonsense snipped,


Those examples were right on topic. You attacked me for "inventing laws", I
showed that the greatest advances in society were brought about by people
challenging "property rights" where they were inappropriate. Beating animals
is an inappropriate property right. Why do think it's only right to defend
the status quo?

> I have already told you moron,
> that I hold *human life* as the standard of *moral value*, I have also
> told you what a value is.


Why do I always end up arguing with the dufus of the group?


  #153 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
>...... I'm not a socialist.


There's none so blind as he who chooses to remain ignorant. Its not my
fault you cant identify your own philosophy.

> Why do I always end up arguing with the dufus of the group?


What, you call your nonsense an argument? Sheeeeeesh

You still haven't explained the *standard* by which you judge god or
bad, right or wrong.

HOW do YOU know if a proposed law is GOOD or BAD? What is YOUR
standard?



Michael Gordge

  #154 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> So we shouldn't force rapists and thieves to abide by the laws/values which
> prohibit/condemn those activities? You aren't making sense.


Your questions have no sense.

> If I choose to kidnap your children and molest them then that's fine by you?


I dare you to try it. As I said moron, I hold human life as the
standard of moral values.

> > I hold the right to life, property and the pursuit of happeness for a
> > human individual as sacrosanct. The right for peaceful human beings to
> > pursue their own values, WHY? because it is THEIR life.

>
> What about the obligation to respect the rights of others?


Let me explain it this way, actually this was posted to another
newsgroup by a silly socalist (arent you all) who thought he was saying
something in support of socialism, he is also an advisor to a left wing
NZ political party.

Newton's Third law, in regards to politics, equal and opposite forces.

*No man may claim any right of action for himself that is not
automatically mirrored by _ an _ equal _ in _ statue duty on his part
to uphold that same right of action as may be claimed by another
person*

As I said to you Dutch, that means, you have a right to act as a dopey
masochist and sadist, HOWEVER, you also have an equal in statue duty to
uphold my right to tell you to **** off and mix with other like minded
masochist sadistical ****wits like yourself. Got it yet?



Michael Gordge

  #155 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> wrote in message oups.com...
<..>
> 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.
Organized around profit and power imperatives, capitalism
is a system of slavery, exploitation, class hierarchy and
inequality, violence, and forced labor. The Global Capitalist
Gulag was fuelled, first, by the labor power of millions of
slaves from Africa and other nations, and, second, by
massive armies of immigrant and domestic workers who
comprised an utterly new social class, the industrialized
proletariat.
.....
http://www.animalliberationfront.com...olitionism.htm

> I am an advocate of the idea that
> *the initiation of physical force* against peaceful people is immoral.


->
12. Michael Gordge Apr 21 2004, 1:51 am
Newsgroups: nz.politics
From: (Michael Gordge)
Date: 20 Apr 2004 17:51:12 -0700
Local: Wed, Apr 21 2004 1:51 am
Subject: Wh at caused the war in Iraq?

wrote in message
> Do feel free to do some research


I did and I'm really ****ed off Bush senior didn't do the job the
first time round. In fact it goes back further than that, didn't do
your history did you? to the US doing nothing when Iran Nationalised
US *owned* oil back in 1950, that's when the US should have blown the
mother****ers off the face of the earth.
<-

> How dare you, your philosophy is evil, it IS the philosophy based upon
> lies, there is NOTHING about YOUR philosophy that is peaceful. There is
> NOTHING about your philosophy that is possble without the threat of
> violence being used against peaceful people, and you have the gawl to
> call me disrespectul, farcanal, ewe take the cake ewe do.

-->
> Michael Gordge


'As black Americans and anti-racists continue to struggle
for justice and equality, the moral and political spotlight is
shifting to a far more ancient, pervasive, intensive, and
violent form of slavery that confines, tortures, and kills
animals by the billions in an ongoing global holocaust.

We speak of animal liberation no differently than human
liberation. One cannot "enslave," "dominate," or "exploit"
physical objects, nor can they be "freed," "liberated," or
"emancipated." These terms apply only to organic life forms
that are sentient - to beings who can experience pleasure
and pain, happiness or suffering. Quite apart from species
differences and arbitrary attempts to privilege human powers
of reason and language over the unique qualities of animal life,
human and nonhuman animals share the same evolutionary
capacities for joy or suffering, and in this respect they are
essentially the same or equal.

Fundamentally, ethics demands that one not cause suffering
to another being or impede another's freedom and quality
of life, unless there is some valid, compelling reason to do so
(e.g., self-defense). For all the voluminous scientific literature
on the complexity of animal emotions, intelligence, and social
life, a being's capacity for sentience is a necessary and
sufficient condition for having basic rights.
...
http://www.animalliberationfront.com...olitionism.htm

*
"I never thought much of the courage of a lion-tamer.
Inside the cage he is at least safe from people."
- George Bernard Shaw
*




  #156 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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?

I reckon there's litterally millions of black Americans who are
as pleased as punch that their ancestors were chosen as slaves.

Been to black South Africa lately have you?

> genocide, and large-scale environmental destruction.


****ing T Shirt slogans

> Organized around profit


The nature of *trade* (capitalism) since it first started was to
exchange
a lessor for a greater value, that difference is called profit.

> I did and I'm really ****ed off Bush senior didn't do the job the
> first time round. In fact it goes back further than that, didn't do
> your history did you? to the US doing nothing when Iran Nationalised
> US *owned* oil back in 1950, that's when the US should have blown the
> mother****ers off the face of the earth.



Absolutely agree.


Michael Gordge

  #157 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> wrote in message ups.com...
>
> 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.

> 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?

> Been to black South Africa lately have you?


I know it ain't pretty, but was it when ruled by whites?

> > genocide, and large-scale environmental destruction.

>
> ****ing T Shirt slogans


That's the horrific, appalling reality of your so-called ideology.

> > Organized around profit

>
> The nature of *trade* (capitalism) since it first started was to
> exchange
> a lessor for a greater value, that difference is called profit.


Give the 'man' a bone! For your 'profit' you take the max'
from 'owned' (stolen) natural resources, exploit to the hilt
any you can, impoverish or kill other people and species.

> > I did and I'm really ****ed off Bush senior didn't do the job the
> > first time round. In fact it goes back further than that, didn't do
> > your history did you? to the US doing nothing when Iran Nationalised
> > US *owned* oil back in 1950, that's when the US should have blown the
> > mother****ers off the face of the earth.

>
>
> Absolutely agree.


And there's all the proof we need.

> Michael Gordge


Nor has your evasion gone unnoted.



  #158 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:40:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:56:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:37:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>> > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
>>>>>>> > weird.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic
>>>>>>> animal
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh really, so where do you draw the line? Surely *death* is the
>>>>>> ultimate *abuse*!!
>>>>>
>>>>>No it isn't,
>>>>
>>>> You consider them to be purely exploited.
>>>
>>>Yes, raising an animal for food is exploitation of that animal, by
>>>definition.

>>
>> Is it somehow exploitation with no abuse involved at all? Explain.

>
>Yes, it's exploitation regardless of abuse. It's the meaning of the word
>exploitation, moron.

__________________________________________________ _______
Main Entry: 2ex·ploit
Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-"
Function: transitive verb
1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit
your opponent's weakness>
2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
I'll agree with 1, so by one definition they are exploited. Some of
them still benefit though, no matter what you "ARAs" say about that.

>>>> What do you consider to be
>>>> a greater abuse than their death?
>>>
>>>Killing an animal for food is not abuse at all,

>>
>> What do you consider to be a greater abuse than their death?

>
>Killing an animal for food is NOT abuse AT ALL.

__________________________________________________ _______
Main Entry: 1abuse
Pronunciation: &-'byüs
Function: noun
[...]
5 : physical maltreatment

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Main Entry: mal·treat
Pronunciation: "mal-'trEt
Function: transitive verb
[...]
: to treat cruelly or roughly

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
That depends on your interpretation I guess. To me killing something
is treating it roughly, but if you think not then whatever. It's rough to
me.

>To say so is to cave into AR
>thinking.


No you moron. It's just a different interpretation of what rough
treatment is.


  #159 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 "Doutche" wrote:

>Shut up


Just do it.
  #160 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>>...... I'm not a socialist.

>
> There's none so blind as he who chooses to remain ignorant. Its not my
> fault you cant identify your own philosophy.


My ideas on politics are irrelevant, nobody needs the right to abuse an
animal.

>> Why do I always end up arguing with the dufus of the group?

>
> What, you call your nonsense an argument? Sheeeeeesh


Yes, nobody needs to abuse animals, nobody.

> You still haven't explained the *standard* by which you judge god or
> bad, right or wrong.


It's bad and wrong to abuse an animal. It serves no purpose.

> HOW do YOU know if a proposed law is GOOD or BAD? What is YOUR
> standard?


It's wrong to inflict abuse on a defenseless being. Humans are not alone in
being capable of suffering harm.



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 01:06 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"