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


> wrote
>
> 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.


Then leave in the context, you said this:
"> 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."


We FORCE our values on rapists and thieves. Get it?

>> 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.


So you'd FORCE your values on me?

>> > 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?


Yea, I get it, you're an idiot who wants the right to abuse animals. Are you
disappointed that the law no longer allows you beat your wife and children?


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


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


Thank you, that took years...

> Some of
> them still benefit though, no matter what you "ARAs" say about that.


I believe that most farm animals live tolerable lives most of the time,
contrary to what ARAs say. The fact remains, we raise and kill them for
food, therefore we can't claim a moral victory from the very fact that they
"experience life". We don't NEED such a hollow, sham victory, it shames us
to even claim it.

>>>>> 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.


Killing an animal for food is justified by virtue of the necessity/nature of
the act. We have every right to provide for ourselves as any omnivorous
animal does. Therefore it's not "abuse" or cruelty, which is by definition
negligent, violent, unwarranted or gratuitous.

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

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


It may be "rough", but it's not negligent, unwarranted or gratuitous,
therefore it's not abuse. Allowing an animal to starve, beating it in anger,
those are examples of abuse. Killing an animal humanely for food is
honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it.


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

Dutch wrote:
> We FORCE our values on rapists and thieves. Get it?


No.

YOU deliberately dropped context of what I said, the bit where I said
about the *initiation of force* being evil, the rapist and robber are
the *initiators* of force against other human beings. Violators of
freedom.

Defence and protection from such harm, IS a perfectly *natural*
therefore moral RIGHT.

It IS a MORAL function of a government to *protect* its citizens from
*initiated* or the *threatened initiation* of force, of thugs like
rapists and robbers.

It is NOT a moral function of a government to be the *initiators of
force* against peaceful human beings.

As for humans who use physical force or cause harm against animals for
no good reason, personally I have no time for them and I find such
behaviour to be irrational, (note I use irrational NOT immoral, thats
because I hold *human life* as the standard of *moral value* not
*animal life* as the standard, animals have no morals) which is NOT a
reason to lock them up or threaten to lock them up in jail, alongside
the rapists and robbers of human beings.

The moral approach to such silly irrational human behaviour is to
persuade them *peacefully* that their actions are irrational and or
unacceptable to you, this can be done peacefully a number of ways, eg
by refusing to trade with them, refusing to talk to them, the term
ostracize springs to mind.

Animals have no rights in nature, (just ask them) animal rights is just
another invention, another method used as an excuse, by socialists, to
control human behaviour by way of threatening to initiate physical
harm.


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

>
> So you'd FORCE your values on me?


Me? FFS you ******, YOU are the one who suggested and would be using
the FORCE, I would be *defending* my values from YOUR *initiated*
force.


Michael Gordge

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


Dutch wrote:
> My ideas on politics are irrelevant,


On the contrary they ARE extremely relevant, animal rights ARE a
political idea, a socialist political invention to be precise.

> nobody needs the right to abuse an
> animal.


So dont abuse them, epecially stop abusing human beings by inventing
laws which have no basis in nature.

You claim you are not a socialist, so you'd support the idea of
abolishing tax? Yeah right!

> It's wrong to inflict abuse on a defenseless being.


And you've been successful in promoting this idea to a mouse caught in
a cat's jaw have you?


Michael Gordge

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


> wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> We FORCE our values on rapists and thieves. Get it?

>
> No.


You should.

> YOU deliberately dropped context of what I said, the bit where I said
> about the *initiation of force* being evil, the rapist and robber are
> the *initiators* of force against other human beings. Violators of
> freedom.


Let's cut to the chase, you don't believe that animals deserve any
protection from abusers. Well, too ****ing bad shit-for-brains, because it's
already there and getting stronger. It's a matter of time until apologists
for abusers like you have nowhere to hide.

> Defence and protection from such harm, IS a perfectly *natural*
> therefore moral RIGHT.


Why isn't it right to protect animals from abuse? What is your stake in
permitting people to abuse animals?

> It IS a MORAL function of a government to *protect* its citizens from
> *initiated* or the *threatened initiation* of force, of thugs like
> rapists and robbers.
>
> It is NOT a moral function of a government to be the *initiators of
> force* against peaceful human beings.


I never advocated such a thing.

> As for humans who use physical force or cause harm against animals for
> no good reason, personally I have no time for them and I find such
> behaviour to be irrational,


There's absolutely no valid reason NOT to use the sanctions of law to
protect animals from abuse BY HUMANS. Such laws ALREADY EXIST.

(note I use irrational NOT immoral, thats
> because I hold *human life* as the standard of *moral value* not
> *animal life* as the standard,


EXPAND your standard, it needs updating. There's no reason to not extend
your alleged compassion into stronger laws, abuse of animals serves no valid
purpose, it's a blight on humanity.

>animals have no morals)


I never suggested animals had morals, I'm talking about human morality.

> which is NOT a
> reason to lock them up or threaten to lock them up in jail, alongside
> the rapists and robbers of human beings.


Jail is too good for the cowardly cocksuckers.

> The moral approach to such silly irrational human behaviour is to
> persuade them *peacefully* that their actions are irrational and or
> unacceptable to you, this can be done peacefully a number of ways, eg
> by refusing to trade with them, refusing to talk to them, the term
> ostracize springs to mind.


That already happens to anyone who is discovered to be an animal abuser, in
case you didn't notice. The problem is, cowardly cocksuckers like them don't
give a shit, so only penalties of law have any effect.

> Animals have no rights in nature,


We''re talking about human society, homes, livestock barns, kennels, NOT
nature.

(just ask them) animal rights is just
> another invention, another method used as an excuse, by socialists, to
> control human behaviour by way of threatening to initiate physical
> harm.


Animal abusers intiate the physical harm.

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

>>
>> So you'd FORCE your values on me?

>
> Me? FFS you ******, YOU are the one who suggested and would be using
> the FORCE, I would be *defending* my values from YOUR *initiated*
> force.


Oh I see, it's fine to use force to defend your values, but I can't use
force to defend mine.

You've already lost this argument, animals are already protected in law
against abusers in most jurisdictions, the only thing slowing down the job
being done well and good is backsliders and apologists like you.




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


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> My ideas on politics are irrelevant,

>
> On the contrary they ARE extremely relevant, animal rights ARE a
> political idea, a socialist political invention to be precise.


Bullshit, and I don't support "Animal Rights" in the extreme sense you
imply, I support protection of animals from immoral attacks by cowardly
cretins.

>> nobody needs the right to abuse an
>> animal.

>
> So dont abuse them,


Not good enough, EVERYONE needs to be deterred from doing it.

> epecially stop abusing human beings by inventing
> laws which have no basis in nature.


No laws or rights have any basis in nature, they are created by man.

> You claim you are not a socialist, so you'd support the idea of
> abolishing tax? Yeah right!


Politics are irrelevant.

>> It's wrong to inflict abuse on a defenseless being.

>
> And you've been successful in promoting this idea to a mouse caught in
> a cat's jaw have you?


Don't be obtuse, immoral acts can ONLY be perpetrated by humans. Abusing an
animal is an immoral act.



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


Dutch wrote:

> Don't be obtuse, immoral acts can ONLY be perpetrated by humans.


*immoral* by whose or what standard?

> Abusing an
> animal is an immoral act.


According to whose morality?

HOW do YOU determine what is or is not moral?


Michael Gordge

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


pearl wrote:
> Predictably, if shockingly, you are trying to justify slavery.


NOPE, nobody can, not even socialist like you can eg justify the act of
taxing and explain the difference to slavery, I'm just stating facts
that morons like you would prefer to ignore.

> > > genocide, and large-scale environmental destruction.

> >
> > ****ing T Shirt slogans

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


Yes T Shirt slogans can be horrific distortions of the truth.


Michael Gordge

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


Dutch wrote:
> Let's cut to the chase, you don't believe that animals deserve any
> protection from abusers.


The Rule of Law

If you dont pay the fine, you eventually go to jail, if you dont go to
jail they come looking for you, if you choose to defend your freedom
with your life eg with a gun, you will be shot.

That has happened in the past and wil happen again in the future and in
the cases of where the crook was a murderer or robber of another human
being or their property, then that is exactly as one would expect the
Rule of Law to mean.

I dont believe a person who beats up on HIS dog should be threatened
with the same punishment (The Rule of Law) as the person who rapes your
daughter.

> Well, too ****ing bad shit-for-brains,


If *shit for brains* is the label you prefer for a person who holds the
view that a human life is more valuable than a dog's life, then so be
it, do you feel better now?

> Why isn't it right to protect animals from abuse?


Read above.

I have also said there are MORAL ways (moral according to *human life*
being the *standard* of moral values) to deal with people who violate
YOUR values.

If YOU value a dog's life, then BUY the ****en dog.

> I never suggested animals had morals, I'm talking about human morality.


Based on WHAT as the standard or morality?

WHY do you keep avoiding that question?

> Animal abusers intiate the physical harm.


When or if they do, to humans, thats when and only when it becomes a
*moral* issue, as YOU yourself have said, morals ONLY apply to humans.

>
> Oh I see, it's fine to use force to defend your values, but I can't use
> force to defend mine.


You are NOT wanting to defend YOUR values, you are wanting to FORCE
them upon others.

YOU have a perfectly rational and moral right to defend YOUR animals
from what you perceive as harm, thats it.

The fact that the law allows you to be a busy body scabby scummy
socialist does not make the law right.


Michael Gordge

  #170 (permalink)   Report Post  
Other guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> Don't be obtuse, immoral acts can ONLY be perpetrated by humans.

>
> *immoral* by whose or what standard?


By standards based on human decency, what else?

>> Abusing an
>> animal is an immoral act.

>
> According to whose morality?


Are we dancing around the maypole or having a serious discussion?

> HOW do YOU determine what is or is not moral?


By having a moral compass that does not exclusively favour MY own interests.

In this case I examine the act of animal abuse and I see that it causes
gratutitous pain and suffering to an innocent, and has no redeeming
properties or value, unless one values the debasing of the human spirit. I
further look outward and see that people who abuse animals are universally
reviled and condemned as pariahs by decent folk. I look further and see that
European countries and my own country are enacting legislation that codifies
the fact that animals, although they may be property, are not *only*
property, but also sentient beings that impart serious responsibilities for
care and protection on the people who care for them.

What kind of person defends animal abusers anyway? What are you afraid of,
that dogs will want the vote? Moron.




  #171 (permalink)   Report Post  
Other guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> Let's cut to the chase, you don't believe that animals deserve any
>> protection from abusers.

>
> The Rule of Law


You don't want animals protected from abuse by law, well too late Buster
Brown, they already are.

> I dont believe a person who beats up on HIS dog should be threatened
> with the same punishment (The Rule of Law) as the person who rapes your
> daughter.


When did I say that child rape and animal abuse deserved the same penalty?
Try to stay on track Mikey, if you're losing the argument admit it like a
man, introducing strawmen to save your hide is dishonest.

>> Well, too ****ing bad shit-for-brains,

>
> If *shit for brains* is the label you prefer for a person who holds the
> view that a human life is more valuable than a dog's life, then so be
> it, do you feel better now?


More straw Mikey, you're getting desperate. I believe that a human life is
the most valuable life of all, by far. Now you're implying that I advocate
the death penalty for animal abuse, I don't even advocate corporal
punishment.

>> Why isn't it right to protect animals from abuse?

>
> Read above.


Above I see strawmen.

> I have also said there are MORAL ways (moral according to *human life*
> being the *standard* of moral values) to deal with people who violate
> YOUR values.


The care and protection of animals is not only MY value, bonehead, it's
already the law of the land.

> If YOU value a dog's life, then BUY the ****en dog.


NO, if you don't value and respect an animal, then DON'T OWN IT.

>> I never suggested animals had morals, I'm talking about human morality.

>
> Based on WHAT as the standard or morality?


The standard of morality that values human decency over sadistic pleasure,
and/or cowardly anger or power-tripping, the things that make people abuse
animals.

> WHY do you keep avoiding that question?


I'm not avoiding it. Why are you afraid to value human decency over the
right to cause unecessary pain and suffering to an innocent animal?

>> Animal abusers intiate the physical harm.

>
> When or if they do, to humans, thats when and only when it becomes a
> *moral* issue, as YOU yourself have said, morals ONLY apply to humans.


Yes, and humans are the ones intiating the harm, so the laws apply to them..

>> Oh I see, it's fine to use force to defend your values, but I can't use
>> force to defend mine.

>
> You are NOT wanting to defend YOUR values, you are wanting to FORCE
> them upon others.


Moral values that are right need to be enforced on scummy backslding animal
abusers like you.

> YOU have a perfectly rational and moral right to defend YOUR animals
> from what you perceive as harm, thats it.


Wrong, I have a moral obligation to support laws to protect all innocent
animals, just as I support the laws that protect your children.

> The fact that the law allows you to be a busy body scabby scummy
> socialist does not make the law right.


**** you, you animal abusing butthead.


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


Other guy wrote:
> When did I say that child rape and animal abuse deserved the same penalty?


So you dont understand The Rule of Law. Its NOT the penality dopey, its
the *enforcement of it*

How do you intend to ultiminately enforce your so called and bogus
animal rights if you are not going to treat and or threaten a dog
beater in the identical manner as a rapist? With a gun??

What you are saying is, that IF both a dog beater and a rapist, BOTH
tried to defend their freedom, BOTH would deserve to die.

That sunshine makes you worse than the ****en dog beater. How dare you
value an animal's life over that of a human, you pig.

I would gladdly shoot to kill a rapist who tried to defend his freedom,
could you *honestly* say that you would be glad to shoot to kill a dog
beater who was trying to defend his freedom?

> > Based on WHAT as the standard or morality?

>
> The standard of morality that values human decency over sadistic pleasure,


Struggling to understand the question I see. ****head YOUR morals have
no standard, they are based on whimsical ****en nonsense.

>
> Wrong, I have a moral obligation to support laws to protect all innocent
> animals,


scoff scoff so animals can be innocent and guilty now? You beeen
watching too much tele mate, Mr Ed cant really talk.

Yeah Lassie is clever, but not that ****en clever she wouldn't bite
your ****en hand off, for playing with her during her meal times.

> just as I support the laws that protect your children.


Until they start work and then you want to threaten them with death if
they dont abide by your equally as idiotic ****en tax laws, you're a
****en liar and a dozey dopey socialist hypocrite.


Michael Gordge

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

No one forces said rapist and said animal abuser to live in said
society. They choose to do that. If they wanted to they could live in
Somalia, which is currently ruled by warlords. By living in a given
society one reaps the benefits of said society. By doing that one
enters into a social contract with all of the other members of that
society. If a person doesn't wish to receive the benefits of a given
society then one should not live in that society. If you want to live
in a society where everyman is his own law then move to a feudal war
torn state, there are several to choose from, and see how well you do
Mike. Until then, if you live in a prosperous society, you must abide
by the social norms that have made that society prosperous. If not,
then that society has the right to remove you from their social
construct. If society says you may not beat a dog, and you enjoy the
benefits of that society, then you have a responsibility to follow that
law. If society asks you to pay taxes to pay for the roads that all
members of society use, then you must do that in order to maintain the
prosperity of your society. If you don't like that then move to a
society where you don't have to do that. Until you do so, would you
like to state again exactly how it is that vegetarians are hypocrites.
Not all vegetarians force their values on others. Most don't. At best
you could make the accusation that some vegetarians are hypocrites. And
I don't think anyone would argue with that.

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


Diogenes wrote:

> construct. If society says you may not beat a dog, and you enjoy the
> benefits of that society, then you have a responsibility to follow that
> law.


Or what?

All you've proved is, you're just another unthinking ****ed in the head
human pig.

You'd as easy shoot a dog beater as you would the scum who rapes your
daughter, thats makes you a rotten human pig deserving of nothing but
contempt.

Defend the ideas of animals rights or **** off back to your cave
****head.


Michael Gordge

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


Diogenes wrote:

> construct. If society says you may not beat a dog, and you enjoy the
> benefits of that society, then you have a responsibility to follow that
> law.


Or what?

All you've proved is, you're just another unthinking ****ed in the head
human pig.

You'd as easy shoot a dog beater as you would the scum who rapes your
daughter, thats makes you a rotten human pig deserving of nothing but
contempt.

Defend the ideas of animals rights or **** off back to your cave
****head.


Michael Gordge



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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:00:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

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

>
>Thank you,


You're welcome.

>that took years...


I've been slamming my head for a while too. But in your case,
this is possibly the first time in years you've been right. We'll find
that it won't last I'm afraid.

>> Some of
>> them still benefit though, no matter what you "ARAs" say about that.

>
>I believe that most farm animals live tolerable lives most of the time,
>contrary to what ARAs say. The fact remains, we raise and kill them for
>food, therefore we can't claim a moral victory from the very fact that they
>"experience life".


Then don't if it bothers you so much.

>We don't NEED such a hollow, sham victory, it shames us
>to even claim it.


No it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. It's a stupid thing to worry about,
unless of course you are an "ARA". That keeps coming up.

>>>>>> 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.

>
>Killing an animal for food is justified by virtue of the necessity/nature of
>the act. We have every right to provide for ourselves as any omnivorous
>animal does. Therefore it's not "abuse" or cruelty, which is by definition
>negligent,


No it's not. That's one form of abuse. Some forms involve too much
attention.

>violent, unwarranted or gratuitous.
>
>>
>>>To say so is to cave into AR
>>>thinking.

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

>
>It may be "rough",


Ya' think?

>but it's not negligent, unwarranted or gratuitous,
>therefore it's not abuse. Allowing an animal to starve, beating it in anger,
>those are examples of abuse.


LOL. But killing it isn't according to you. To me killing an animal
is rough treatment, meaning it's abuse.

>Killing an animal humanely for food is
>honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it.


That could only be because you say so, and that is no reason
at all. Considering that animals live is basic consideration that you
obviously can't imagine. You can't think beyond your own self.
You're just not capable. The idea of you ever deliberately contributing
to life for cage free layers is absurd! You're most likely some sort of
veg*n, as you admitted to years ago:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:52:56 -080
Message-ID: >

I eat a vegetarian diet
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
A rare honest moment for you. I believe you're still some sort of veg*n,
and don't believe this garbage you included in that same post:

"I'm more comfortable with accepting my role in the dance of life and
death than I am with hypocrisy."

Such bullshit. You're only comfortable accepting your role in some
deaths, but in NO lives.
  #177 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


<dh@.> wrote

>>> I'll agree with 1, so by one definition they are exploited.

>>
>>Thank you,

>
> You're welcome.
>
>>that took years...

>
> I've been slamming my head for a while too. But in your case,
> this is possibly the first time in years you've been right. We'll find
> that it won't last I'm afraid.


Everything I've been saying has been right all along.

>>> Some of
>>> them still benefit though, no matter what you "ARAs" say about that.

>>
>>I believe that most farm animals live tolerable lives most of the time,
>>contrary to what ARAs say. The fact remains, we raise and kill them for
>>food, therefore we can't claim a moral victory from the very fact that
>>they
>>"experience life".

>
> Then don't if it bothers you so much.


I don't. The issue here is that *you* have come to a public forum on ethics
to promote this nonsense.

>>We don't NEED such a hollow, sham victory, it shames us
>>to even claim it.

>
> No it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. It's a stupid thing to worry
> about,


I'm not worried about it, it's a dead issue, I just oppose it because it's
wrong.

> unless of course you are an "ARA". That keeps coming up.


You keep trying to divert attention from my real argument with it, but it's
a colossal strawman, and you know it.

>>>>>>> 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.

>>
>>Killing an animal for food is justified by virtue of the necessity/nature
>>of
>>the act. We have every right to provide for ourselves as any omnivorous
>>animal does. Therefore it's not "abuse" or cruelty, which is by definition
>>negligent,

>
> No it's not. That's one form of abuse. Some forms involve too much
> attention.


You plucked one definition from a list and replied that it wasn't the only
kind, moron.

>>violent, unwarranted or gratuitous.
>>
>>>
>>>>To say so is to cave into AR
>>>>thinking.
>>>
>>> No you moron. It's just a different interpretation of what rough
>>> treatment is.

>>
>>It may be "rough",

>
> Ya' think?


Sure, killing can be like that.

>>but it's not negligent, unwarranted or gratuitous,
>>therefore it's not abuse. Allowing an animal to starve, beating it in
>>anger,
>>those are examples of abuse.

>
> LOL. But killing it isn't according to you. To me killing an animal
> is rough treatment, meaning it's abuse.


So you think we are complicit in abusing animals by performing the natural
act of eating... THOSE are the words of an ARA.

That keeps coming up.

>>Killing an animal humanely for food is
>>honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it.

>
> That could only be because you say so, and that is no reason
> at all.


The reason is that it twists the truth to serve your own interests. You not
only "abuse" animals to use your words, but you claim a moral victory at the
same time. Why can't you see what sick thinking that is?

> Considering that animals live is basic consideration that you
> obviously can't imagine. You can't think beyond your own self.
> You're just not capable.


I know that animals live. I can also "imagine" how the logic of the larder
works in your brain. I just despise it because it's self-serving, grotty
sophism.

> The idea of you ever deliberately contributing
> to life for cage free layers is absurd!


Why? I prefer to avoid supporting battery cage production.

>You're most likely some sort of
> veg*n, as you admitted to years ago:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:52:56 -080
> Message-ID: >
>
> I eat a vegetarian diet
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> A rare honest moment for you. I believe you're still some sort of veg*n,
> and don't believe this garbage you included in that same post:
>
> "I'm more comfortable with accepting my role in the dance of life and
> death than I am with hypocrisy."
>
> Such bullshit. You're only comfortable accepting your role in some
> deaths, but in NO lives.


I accept my role in animal lives, but I neither need nor take comfort from
the fact that those animals "experience life".




  #178 (permalink)   Report Post  
Other guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote

[restore context:]
Stop butchering the context of the discussion meathead. What are you hiding
from?

Bonehead wrote:
> I dont believe a person who beats up on HIS dog should be threatened
> with the same punishment (The Rule of Law) as the person who rapes your
> daughter.
>
> Other guy wrote:
>> When did I say that child rape and animal abuse deserved the same
>> penalty?

>
> So you dont understand The Rule of Law. Its NOT the penality dopey, its
> the *enforcement of it*


The same "punishment" the same "penalty", synomyms. Now you're equivocating.
What's the matter, run out of strawmen?

> How do you intend to ultiminately enforce your so called and bogus
> animal rights if you are not going to treat and or threaten a dog
> beater in the identical manner as a rapist? With a gun??


With police and/or animal welfare authorities, the same way it's enforced
NOW.

> What you are saying is, that IF both a dog beater and a rapist, BOTH
> tried to defend their freedom, BOTH would deserve to die.


If a person draws a weapon on a the police then they have created a whole
other scenario. At that point it no longer matters if the original offence
was speeding, animal abuse, disturbing the peace, or murder.

> That sunshine makes you worse than the ****en dog beater. How dare you
> value an animal's life over that of a human, you pig.


I already told you I value human life above all others. Weren't you
listening?

> I would gladdly shoot to kill a rapist who tried to defend his freedom,
> could you *honestly* say that you would be glad to shoot to kill a dog
> beater who was trying to defend his freedom?


If I were an officer enforcing ANY LAW and that person drew a weapon on me
then I would respond the way I was trained.

>> > Based on WHAT as the standard or morality?

>>
>> The standard of morality that values human decency over sadistic
>> pleasure,

>
> Struggling to understand the question I see. ****head YOUR morals have
> no standard, they are based on whimsical ****en nonsense.


I answered the question, you're the one struggling to support your position
with strawmen, equivocations and implausible scenarios like people drawing
weapons on the police.

>> Wrong, I have a moral obligation to support laws to protect all innocent
>> animals,

>
> scoff scoff so animals can be innocent and guilty now?


Another strawman, I never claimed that animals were guilty.

You beeen
> watching too much tele mate, Mr Ed cant really talk.
>
> Yeah Lassie is clever, but not that ****en clever she wouldn't bite
> your ****en hand off, for playing with her during her meal times.


She'd warn you first, you should back off. Are you a fool?

>> just as I support the laws that protect your children.

>
> Until they start work and then you want to threaten them with death if
> they dont abide by your equally as idiotic ****en tax laws, you're a
> ****en liar and a dozey dopey socialist hypocrite.


Bozo, give up and stop embarrassing yourself.


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


Other guy wrote:
> I already told you I value human life above all others.



That makes you a liar, plain ****en stupid or both, I suspect both.

Check your premises moron. Contradictions do not exist in reality
because what is real is real.

If you *valued* a humam life *above* all else, then you would NOT give
an animal the identical values as you do a human being. You would not
claim that morals apply to animals, you not would not claim innocence
and guilt are concepts that apply to animals.

AND you would NOT treat humans the same way as you do an animal.

An adult human being who steals, even by fraud, from other human beings
deserves to be in jail, alongside rapists murderers muggers and all
other scum who initiate physical force against peaceful individuals,
against their will belong in jail.

If it was true that you value human beings *above all else* then Dog
beaters (as much as you may dispise them) do not belong in jail, which
is where they MUST go if they do not pay your ****en invented fines -
The Rule of Law.

The very idea of sending a dog beater to jail, is the idea that humans
are NOT being treated *above all else*.

YOUR morals, your values (eg that animals and humans be treated
identically) as bizzare as they are, belong to YOU.

If you dont like the way a human being treats an animal AND IF you hold
human values above all else, then you have NO CHOICE but to find
another way of convincing that human to leave the dog alone.



Michael Gordge

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


Other guy wrote:
> >> Don't be obtuse, immoral acts can ONLY be perpetrated by humans.

> >
> > *immoral* by whose or what standard?

>
> By standards based on human decency, what else?


Which only serves to prove YOUR claim that you hold human values above
all else, as an absolute ****en lie.


Michael Gordge



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


Other guy wrote:
> >> Wrong, I have a moral obligation to support laws to protect all innocent
> >> animals,

> >
> > scoff scoff so animals can be innocent and guilty now?

>
> Another strawman, I never claimed that animals were guilty.


Wuddya mean another strawman? YOU said the animal was *innocent*
innocent can only apply if it can also be guilty of something.


Michael Gordge

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


> wrote
>
> Other guy wrote:
>> I already told you I value human life above all others.

>
>
> That makes you a liar, plain ****en stupid or both, I suspect both.


**** you sideways with a broken bottle.

> Check your premises moron. Contradictions do not exist in reality
> because what is real is real.
>
> If you *valued* a humam life *above* all else, then you would NOT give
> an animal the identical values as you do a human being.


I don't, another strawman, you're setting a record for dishonesty.

> You would not
> claim that morals apply to animals,


I didn't. Humans are prohibited from stealing cars, that doesn't mean morals
apply to cars.

> you not would not claim innocence
> and guilt are concepts that apply to animals.


Guilt doesn't apply to animals, innocence does.

> AND you would NOT treat humans the same way as you do an animal.


Another strawman. I already told you that I would kill a dog that bites
children, I wouldn't kill a human who bites children, I'd get him treatment.

> An adult human being who steals, even by fraud, from other human beings
> deserves to be in jail, alongside rapists murderers muggers and all
> other scum who initiate physical force against peaceful individuals,
> against their will belong in jail.


OK. Why not animal abusers? Why are you protecting them? You must be one.

> If it was true that you value human beings *above all else* then Dog
> beaters (as much as you may dispise them) do not belong in jail,


Why not?

> which
> is where they MUST go if they do not pay your ****en invented fines -
> The Rule of Law.
>
> The very idea of sending a dog beater to jail, is the idea that humans
> are NOT being treated *above all else*.


That's a fallacy. I would send a person who defaces public property to jail,
that doesn't mean I value public property over human life. You're blowing
smoke out your ass Mikey.

> YOUR morals, your values (eg that animals and humans be treated
> identically) as bizzare as they are, belong to YOU.


Wrong again, I'm reflecting already existing, common moral values.

> If you dont like the way a human being treats an animal AND IF you hold
> human values above all else,


You're moving the goalposts now Mikey. I said I value and respect "human
life" above all other forms of life, I don't respect the value that says
it's acceptable to abuse an animal.

You just can't debate honestly can you? If you did you'd lose immediately,
that's why.

> then you have NO CHOICE but to find
> another way of convincing that human to leave the dog alone.


Laws are the usual way of sending the message to citizens what behaviour is
acceptable and what behaviour is not, why invent another means?



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


> wrote
>
> Other guy wrote:
>> >> Don't be obtuse, immoral acts can ONLY be perpetrated by humans.
>> >
>> > *immoral* by whose or what standard?

>>
>> By standards based on human decency, what else?

>
> Which only serves to prove YOUR claim that you hold human values above
> all else, as an absolute ****en lie.


Decency isn't a human value?? It is for most people, but I can see it isn't
for you.


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


> wrote
>
> Other guy wrote:
>> >> Wrong, I have a moral obligation to support laws to protect all
>> >> innocent
>> >> animals,
>> >
>> > scoff scoff so animals can be innocent and guilty now?

>>
>> Another strawman, I never claimed that animals were guilty.

>
> Wuddya mean another strawman? YOU said the animal was *innocent*
> innocent can only apply if it can also be guilty of something.


Now you're grasping at straws. Animals *are* innocent by default, i.e. no
moral judgment applies to them.



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


Dutch wrote:
> **** you sideways with a broken bottle.


What and you reckon you aren't violent?

Dutch, you are sick, very very sick.

*Sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you,
without YOUR permission.*

Why did you give YOUR permission, being called stupid, to hurt you, if
its not ****en true?

You need laws to protect YOUR animals from YOU, because ewe are scarred
of yourself, aren't you?

> I didn't. Humans are prohibited from stealing cars, that doesn't mean morals
> apply to cars.


****ing idiot, cars that are stolen belong to other human beings. ****,
why are trying so hard to be so ****en stupid?

If I beat up YOUR dog (without provocation ie if I wasn't defending
myself), then YOU would have a *moral right* to sue me, just as you
would if I took your ****en car or damaged it.

That moral right does not exist because it was a ****en *dog* or a
*car*, it exists because the dog BELONGS to YOU.

> OK. Why not animal abusers?....


BECAUSE I have already explained a thousand time, I am holding *human
life* - and UNLIKE YOU - NOT *animal life*, as the standard of moral
value, that's why.

I treat animals and humans differently, thats why. I hold the value
that human who beat up humans are scum and deserve to be in jail, I
hold the value that people who beat up dogs are acting irrationally and
deserve to be treated with contempt, deserve not to be spoken to, dont
deserve to be traded with, but do not deserve to be treated as the
rapist of a child.

I say that people who *steal* dogs, owned by other people, belong in
jail, but silly people who beat their own dogs, as irrational as that
maybe, have a right to BECAUSE, it IS THEIR ****en dog.

>
> That's a fallacy. I would send a person who defaces public property to jail,
> that doesn't mean I value public property over human life. You're blowing
> smoke out your ass Mikey.


*Public property* IS a property belonging to, in the ownership of all.

A dickhead who beats HIS dog is NOT beating a DOG *owned* by the
public.

**** you are stupid.

> Wrong again, I'm reflecting already existing, common moral values.


Like I said, your *morals* have no standard, they are based on the whim
of whatever the bigger mob thinks.

You stupid git, do you have no ability to think and act for YOURself?

So what happens when the mob's morals tell you to jump off a cliff? or
what happens when the bigger mob's morals tell you to take number
5,999,999 prior to being fried.

Dah, you're as thick as pig shit, your ideas are as evil as any
unthinking socialist I have ever exchanged words with, your morals
belong in the toilet along with your shit.

You make me puke, you are a disgrace to the human race, if only dogs
could love you.


Michael Gordge



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


Dutch wrote:
> Decency isn't a human value?? It is for most people, but I can see it isn't
> for you.


Trying to be stupid again Dutch?

Decency is a human value, its not an animal value, its not a value that
can be understood or applied to animals. Ever tried to tell a cat that
playing with a mouse prior to eating it is indecent?



Michael Gordge

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

Mike, once again you failed to see the point. It is not the fact that
they were beating the dog that got them shot. It was their refusal to
submit to the laws of their society. If you beat an animal, society has
a right to punish you. If you refuse to submit to that punishment,
society has the right to force it on you. If you fight back when that
happens, society has the right to take appropriate measures to protect
itself from you. See how that works. If you live in a society you agree
to abide by the rules of that society. Property or no property, if you
refuse to allow society to police itself, then you force society to
act. If that results in your death, that was your fault, not the
legislature. If you can't see that their is no sense in arguing with
you. By the way, you still have to prove how vegetarians are
hypocrites. What does socialism have to do with vegatarianism? If you
choose not to eat meat, how does that inherently imply that you are a
hypocrite? You would only be a hypocrite if you somehow forced those
values on another. Being a vegetarian doesn't inherently imply that.
What do animal rights have to do with whether or not vegetarians are
hypocrites. You can be a vegetarian w/o being an animal rights
activist. You might not like the taste of meat. Mike, who's your
inspiration, Fred Durst. You just want to see how many times you can
insert the word "****" into any given thread don't you.

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


Diogenes wrote:
> submit to the laws of their society. If you beat an animal, society has
> a right to punish you.


When a society claims a right to punish people based on the way they
treat animals, then that society has made a decision that animals and
humans are no different to each other. That society have granted to
animals a moral code of equal standards to humans, that is a society of
evil.

Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of
reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right
to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational
faculty--which is exercised by choice.

The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force.
To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force
by other men--free to use their own minds to guide their choices and
actions.

Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.

None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational
thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by
psychologists). They survive through sensory-perceptual association and
the pleasure-pain mechanism. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a
code of ethics.

A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man).
Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have
the capacity to learn any other.

Only man has the power, guided by a code of morality, to deal with
other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational
persuasion. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim
that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our
welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept
of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher
than ourselves--a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not
to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as
inventing a bill of rights for them--at our expense.


Michael Gordge

NOTE some of the above, for no other reason than time is a cut and
paste from

Animal "Rights" Versus Human Rights
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
By: Edwin A. Locke

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


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> **** you sideways with a broken bottle.

>
> What and you reckon you aren't violent?


Not at all.

> Dutch, you are sick, very very sick.


That's rich.

> *Sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you,
> without YOUR permission.*


Exactly.

> Why did you give YOUR permission, being called stupid, to hurt you, if
> its not ****en true?


You're degenerating into pure gibberish now. What'sa matter, run out of
fallacies?

> You need laws to protect YOUR animals from YOU, because ewe are scarred
> of yourself, aren't you?


You're the abuser protector, not I.

>> I didn't. Humans are prohibited from stealing cars, that doesn't mean
>> morals
>> apply to cars.

>
> ****ing idiot, cars that are stolen belong to other human beings. ****,
> why are trying so hard to be so ****en stupid?


Stop butchering the context you dishonest, stupid, shit-for-brains
cocksucker.

In response to my support for animal protection, you whacked the following
strawman, "You would not claim that morals apply to animals"

Well Einstein, protecting animals does NOT mean that I believe morals apply
to animals, it means I support *protection* of animals from abusers, it
means morals apply to HUMANS, not animals.

> If I beat up YOUR dog (without provocation ie if I wasn't defending
> myself), then YOU would have a *moral right* to sue me, just as you
> would if I took your ****en car or damaged it.


Sue you for what? Unless the dog required veterinary care I would have no
claim against you.

> That moral right does not exist because it was a ****en *dog* or a
> *car*, it exists because the dog BELONGS to YOU.


Get off this property kick you simple ****nuts, owning an animal is
different than owning a car, an animals comes with OBLIGATIONS, a car
doesn't.

**** you're stupid.

>> OK. Why not animal abusers?....

>
> BECAUSE I have already explained a thousand time, I am holding *human
> life* - and UNLIKE YOU - NOT *animal life*, as the standard of moral
> value, that's why.


You're a lying bag of shit you asshole, "human life" is not "property". You
value *property rights*, not human life, above the obligation to protect an
animal from abuse. Well the law disagrees with you, you redneck
shit-for-brains, if you abuse your animals they will be confiscated and you
will be prosecuted, and with any luck you won't have a friend left in the
world and will jump off some cliff.

> I treat animals and humans differently, thats why.


So do I.

> I hold the value
> that human who beat up humans are scum and deserve to be in jail,


Good.

> I
> hold the value that people who beat up dogs are acting irrationally and
> deserve to be treated with contempt, deserve not to be spoken to, dont
> deserve to be traded with, but do not deserve to be treated as the
> rapist of a child.


Why did you throw the "child rapist" red herring in there? Why not compare
apples to apples? Why not compare beating up a human to beating up a dog?
Why shouldn't a person who beats up a dog be thrown in jail? The answer is,
there is no reason. The fact that he owns the dog is IRRELEVANT.

> I say that people who *steal* dogs, owned by other people, belong in
> jail, but silly people who beat their own dogs, as irrational as that
> maybe, have a right to BECAUSE, it IS THEIR ****en dog.


BULLSHIT, ownership of an animal is NOT license to abuse it, not even by
existing weak animal protection laws.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!

>> That's a fallacy. I would send a person who defaces public property to
>> jail,
>> that doesn't mean I value public property over human life. You're blowing
>> smoke out your ass Mikey.

>
> *Public property* IS a property belonging to, in the ownership of all.


Yes, now go back and read for comprehension, your stupidity is tiresome.

> A dickhead who beats HIS dog is NOT beating a DOG *owned* by the
> public.


Irrelevant, your stupidity is BORING.

<snip mindless drivel>

Doesn't the fact that I have shot down every single argument you have made
ring a bell in the so-called mind of yours? You know, all those bits that
snip away every time without noting?

Go **** yourself, you're the stupidest, most reprehensible bag of snot I've
ever encountered.


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


> wrote:

Mangling the context to hide your stupidity again eh Mikey?

Here's the whole exchange...

>> > *immoral* by whose or what standard?

>>
>> By standards based on human decency, what else?

>
> Which only serves to prove YOUR claim that you hold human values above
> all else, as an absolute ****en lie.

--->

> Trying to be stupid again Dutch?
>
> Decency is a human value, its not an animal value,


Yes, that's who I'm applying it to, humans. That's why it's called "human
decency".

> its not a value that
> can be understood or applied to animals.


I'm not applying the moral value to animals, I'm applying it to humans.

> Ever tried to tell a cat that
> playing with a mouse prior to eating it is indecent?


Why are you applying moral values to animals? Only humans are capable of
moral values, one of which is not abusing animals.

C'mon Mikey you know animal protection is a valid moral value, you've said
so, you just think *property rights* supercede it. Well think again, they
don't, not in the civilized world they don't. Maybe you don't belong in the
civilized world.

You ****in idiot, you don't even understand your own position.




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


Dutch wrote:
Nothing more than his/her typical terrorist inspired ****en nonsense.

Fruit cakes such as Dutch and all the other advocates of animal rights
who have posted to this thread, all have the same sickening anti-human
agenda.

If you want to know where the idea of animal-rights IS taking humanity
then have a read of this.

The Terror of "Animal Rights"
Wednesday, February 4, 2004
By: Alex Epstein

The goal of the animal-rights movement is to sacrifice and subjugate
man to animals.

The "animal rights" movement is celebrating its latest victory: an
earlier, more painful death for future victims of Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, and Huntington's disease.

Thanks to intimidation by animal rights terrorists, Cambridge
University has dropped plans to build a laboratory that would have
conducted cutting-edge brain research on primates. According to The
Times of London, animal-rights groups "had threatened to target the
centre with violent protests ... and Cambridge decided that it could
not afford the costs or danger to staff that this would involve."

The university had good reason to be afraid. At a nearby animal-testing
company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, "protestors" have for several years
attempted to shut down the company by threatening employees and
associates, damaging their homes, firebombing their cars, even beating
them severely.

Many commentators and medical professionals in Britain have condemned
the animal-rights terrorists and their violent tactics. Unfortunately,
most have cast the terrorists as "extremists" who take "too far" the
allegedly benevolent cause of animal rights. This is a deadly mistake.
The terrorists' inhuman tactics are an embodiment of the movement's
inhuman cause.

While most animal-rights activists do not inflict beatings on animal
testers, they do share the terrorists' goal of ending animal
research--including the vital research the Cambridge lab would have
conducted.

There is no question that animal research is absolutely necessary for
the development of life-saving drugs, medical procedures, and biotech
treatments. According to Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray, M.D.: "Animal
experimentation has been essential to the development of all cardiac
surgery, transplantation surgery, joint replacements, and all
vaccinations." Explains former American Medical Association president
Daniel Johnson, M.D.: "Animal research--followed by human clinical
study--is absolutely necessary to find the causes and cures for so many
deadly threats, from AIDS to cancer."

Millions of humans would suffer and die unnecessarily if animal testing
were prohibited. Animal rights activists know this, but are unmoved.
Chris DeRose, founder of the group Last Chance for Animals, writes: "If
the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any
difference to me."

The goal of the animal-rights movement is not to stop sadistic animal
torturers; it is to sacrifice and subjugate man to animals. This goal
is inherent in the very notion of "animal rights." According to People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the basic principle of "animal
rights" is: "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use
for entertainment"--they "deserve consideration of their own best
interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans." This is in
exact contradiction to the requirements of human survival and progress,
which demand that we kill animals when they endanger us, eat them when
we need food, run tests on them to fight disease. The death and
destruction that would result from any serious attempt to respect
"animal rights" would be catastrophic--for humans--a prospect the
movement's most consistent members embrace. "We need a drastic decrease
in human population if we ever hope to create a just and equitable
world for animals," proclaims Freeman Wicklund of Compassionate Action
for Animals.

To ascribe rights to animals is to contradict the purpose and
justification of rights--to protect the interests of humans. Rights are
moral principles necessary for men to survive as human beings--to
coexist peacefully, to produce and trade, to provide for their own
lives, and to pursue their own happiness, all by the guidance of their
rational minds. To attribute rights to nonrational, amoral creatures
who can neither grasp nor live by them is to turn rights from a tool of
human preservation to a tool of human extermination.

It should be no surprise that many in the animal-rights movement use
violence to pursue their man-destroying goals. While these terrorists
should be condemned and imprisoned, that is not enough. We must wage a
principled, intellectual war against the very notion of "animal
rights"; we must condemn it as logically false and morally repugnant.

Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in Irvine,
California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author
of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

This Op-Ed was published in the Bucks County Courier Times (February
16, 2004) and El Nuevo Herald (February 17, 2004)



Michael Gordge

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


Dutch wrote:

> Why are you applying moral values to animals?


If I was doing that then I would be saying, lets lock people up in jail
for abusing animals, hmmmmmmm isn't that exactly YOUR position Dutch?

How many more times Dutch? I hold *human life as the standard of moral
value*

I would never threaten to lock up a human being in jail because he
abused an animal, WHY? because human morality can not, does not apply
to animals.


Michael Gordge

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


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Diogenes wrote:
>> submit to the laws of their society. If you beat an animal, society has
>> a right to punish you.

>
> When a society claims a right to punish people based on the way they
> treat animals, then that society has made a decision that animals and
> humans are no different to each other.


That's a strawman, they have made no such decision.

> That society have granted to
> animals a moral code of equal standards to humans, that is a society of
> evil.


Fallacy, our moral code *includes* decent treatment of animals as a tenet,
that does NOT mean treating humans and animals the SAME.

COME ON MIKE, THINK FOR ONCE!

> Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of
> reason and choice.


Nobody is saying otherwise.

> There is only one fundamental right: a man's right
> to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational
> faculty--which is exercised by choice.
>
> The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force.
> To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force
> by other men--free to use their own minds to guide their choices and
> actions.
>
> Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.


Nice speech, but irrelevant.

> None of this is relevant to animals.


Abuse by humans is relevant to animals.

> Animals do not survive by rational
> thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by
> psychologists). They survive through sensory-perceptual association and
> the pleasure-pain mechanism. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a
> code of ethics.


Nobody is suggesting they do.

> A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man).
> Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have
> the capacity to learn any other.


Yawn....

> Only man has the power, guided by a code of morality, to deal with
> other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational
> persuasion.


So what?

> To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim
> that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our
> welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept
> of morality.


What welfare do we sacrifice by giving up the right to abuse animals?

> It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher
> than ourselves--a flagrant contradiction.


Why higher? We can't abuse humans with impunity either.

> Of course, it is proper not
> to cause animals gratuitous suffering.


There, you just admitted that abusing animals is a moral issue.

> But this is not the same as
> inventing a bill of rights for them--at our expense.


The only expense is the loss of the legal right to abuse animals, and since,
as you just admited, you already lack the moral right to do it, so what's
the problem?

C'mon there Mike, be a man, you know you're wrong, admit it. You may prefer
to say, many do, that you have a moral "obligation" to refrain from abusing
animals, rather than say that they have a "right" to be free from such
abuse. Personally I think it's exactly the same thing, but some people get
silly when the word "right" is used, as if we'll be prevented from eating
meat or owning dogs or something...



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


> wrote knee-jerk mindless reactionary bullshit

Shut up and listen to people once in a while you moron. I'm not advocating
Animal Rights, if you paid attention to anything I said you'd know that.


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


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> Why are you applying moral values to animals?

>
> If I was doing that then I would be saying, lets lock people up in jail
> for abusing animals, hmmmmmmm isn't that exactly YOUR position Dutch?


That's applying moral values to humans, otherwise you wouldn't be locking
them up.

> How many more times Dutch? I hold *human life as the standard of moral
> value*


You don't understand your own position. It has nothing to do with "human
life", no human life is being threatened in anything we have been
discussing. You DO believe animal abuse is a moral issue, but you are afraid
of the radical movement "Animal Rights", which is not what I'm about, and
you have this idea that ownership of an animal is a legal licence to abuse
it, which it isn't.

> I would never threaten to lock up a human being in jail because he
> abused an animal, WHY? because human morality can not, does not apply
> to animals.


You're confused. Locking up an animal abuser is applying moral values to a
human. The moral value being applied is the one you admit exists, the one
that says animal abuse is wrong.




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


Dutch wrote:
> Shut up and listen to people once in a while you moron. I'm not advocating
> Animal Rights, if you paid attention to anything I said you'd know that.


Looks like you could have benefitted from that Alzheimer's research
that your buddies stopped, Dutch.

Sep 24, 5:06 am show options

Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan,
alt.philosophy
From: "Dutch" > - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:06:38 -0700
Local: Sat, Sep 24 2005 5:06 am
Subject: vegetarians aren't hypocrites
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

> Dutch wrote:
> ... when I say I recognize rights in animals.



> 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. Failure to
respect
these rights will result in sanctions and legal penalties just as if
you
violated the right of a human. Quote unquote

> Shut up and listen to people once in a while you moron. I'm not advocating
> Animal Rights, if you paid attention to anything I said you'd know that.



What a ****ing idiot.



Michael Gordge

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

Mike, when a society decides it has a right to punish people based on
how they treat animals, they're not abusing them. They're putting them
where they can't harm other people who are weaker than they are. Who do
you think beats animals, UFC fighters, maybe olympic wrestlers. Nah, I
don't think so. What it really boils down to is people who beat animals
are a threat to the society and need to either be re-habilitated or put
in a place where they can't harm others. In addition Mike, how do you
know that "human reason" as you put it, is not merely a response to
stimuli. If you can prove it, then you're the man. But here's the
thing, you can't. If the fact that animals don't live by reason allows
you to beat them, what does that say about how we treat the mentally
ill. Or children. Do you realize there have been studies that show that
border collies function at a higher level than 3 year old humans. By
your rational it is okay to beat 3 year olds and the mentally ill.
Since the only thing that seperates man from animal is reason, it
follows that those who don't use reason are not subject to the
protection of the law. Are you comfortable with that Mike, because I am
not. Animal rights versus Human rights, it's a very clear argument. But
that doesn't mean that society should not prevent animals from
suffering when it is not necessary. I like how you reply to one
sentence of every post. Very effective. Did you think I forgot the rest
of what it is that I wrote. Even if I did, did you think I wasn't smart
enough to scroll up and check it. Try and argue the points here mike.
If you can't do that then don't post. Unless if all of this is just for
comedic effect (and your arguments are kind of funny to be honest). or
just sad.

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

In addition mike, your making a hasty generalization. How can you
assume that all people who believe in animal rights believe in the
degree of animal rights that these people are proposing. I would like
the world to be as black and white as you see it as mike, but that's
just not the case. You paint with too broad of a brush. You should
relax a little bit. You need a hug. Or some lithium, I really can't
tell.

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

In addition mike, your making a hasty generalization. How can you
assume that all people who believe in animal rights believe in the
degree of animal rights that these people are proposing. I would like
the world to be as black and white as you see it as mike, but that's
just not the case. You paint with too broad of a brush. You should
relax a little bit. You need a hug. Or some lithium, I really can't
tell.

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


> wrote

> What a ****ing idiot.


Yes, you are, if you don't understand the difference between the radical
Animal Rights movement that bombs labs, wants to ban meat, throws blood
around, and the idea of protection of animals from abuse. YOU ALREADY KNOW
that preventing abuse of animals is a moral issue, it's already intrenched
in law in every civilized country. This is a DONE DEAL Mikey, you may as
well go pound sand, you're not going to win back the right to abuse animals,
whether you own them or not, it's already GONE. You're a dinosaur.





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 08:39 AM.

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"