|
Diogenes wrote: > Mike, when a society decides it has a right to punish people based on > how they treat animals, they're not abusing them. That just depends on what your (the society's) *standard* of moral values are. If you (the society) has no *standard* for your moral values, that is to say, nothing to judge your values against, then you'd be right, ie treat humans as if they are animals and vice versa, make things up to suit the occasion. As Dutch says, his morals are based on whatever the mob are thinking at the time. Dutch's morals (no dooubt yours as well) have no standard and are subject to change at any time acording to the direction of the next whim. However I hold human life as the standard of moral value and that animals have no concept no ability of understanding rights. I find abusing animals as irrational behaviour not immoral behaviour. Humans require humans to help solve the problems of human survival, therefore peaceful persuasion is the most logical method of trying to get people to accept your values. The rest of your post I snipped and might reply to if I find it relevant. Michael Gordge |
> wrote the usual garbage Go take nap Mikey, you're incoherent. |
On 30 Sep 2005 01:56:26 -0700, wrote:
>Diogenes wrote: >> >> Mike, when a society decides it has a right to punish people based on >> how they treat animals, they're not abusing them. > >That just depends on what your (the society's) *standard* of moral >values are. > >If you (the society) has no *standard* for your moral values, that is >to say, nothing to judge your values against, then you'd be right, ie >treat humans as if they are animals and vice versa, make things up to >suit the occasion. > >As Dutch says, his morals are based on whatever the mob are thinking at >the time. Dutch's morals (no dooubt yours as well) have no standard and >are subject to change at any time acording to the direction of the next >whim. Exactly! In fact his whole Usenet history is full of contradictions and changes in stance on a whim. Over the years, since Dutch first appeared on the animal related groups pretending to promote the proposition of animal rights, he's changed his stance on this proposition so many times that it's difficult to know when he's actually telling the truth. All his quotes below come with a date and a link, and I've arranged them in chronological order so you can see his ever- changing switches in position more clearly. He first came here claiming to be a believer in the proposition of animal rights. "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 and "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh But within just a few months he switched position and started writing things like; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational ." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 But then he switched back again, accepting the proposition of animal rights, and claiming to have signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian government. "I recently signed a petition online supporting an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament." Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn and "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for animals would not exist." Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz and "If they are inherent in humans then why are they not in some way inherent in all animals? I think rights are a human invention which we apply widely to humans and in specific ways in certain situations to other animals." ... "There is no coherent reason why humans ought to be prohibited from extending some form of rights towards animals in their care." ... "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights, we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply versions of them to certain animals in limited ways within our sphere of influence." Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb and "I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must conclude that they hold rights against humans who would abuse them." Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp and "Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar way as minor children or people in comas. They can hold rights against us, but we can't hold rights against them." Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx So, contrary to his current claim, he is on record promoting the proposition of animal rights for over a very long period. Now look at the other issues raised here he's lied about over the years; USING UNETHICAL TREATMENTS; "I categorically refuse to use any treatment shown to have been developed using human subjects against their will." Dutch 25 Nov 2002 http://tinyurl.com/5zw3m and "If modern medicine were built on the use of unwilling humans, I would certainly refuse it." Dutch 27 Nov 2002 http://tinyurl.com/5tu6a to "I think it's reasonable to use treatments developed long ago even if those treatments were obtained unethically." Dutch 01 Dec 2002 http://tinyurl.com/6zqbj OUR ACTIONS SAY WE APPROVE; >> "If you continue to support the medical system >> by accepting all existing treatments and >> medications, your actions say that you approve >> of modern medicine and that means how we >> got here." >> Dutch 2002-11-24 > >And I have the sense now to see that is not a >reasonable position. Excellent! Then it should be clear to you that my actions don't say I approve of animals being used in labs for my treatments and meds, either, dork! Derek, as "ipse dixit" 06 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/66rds LOGIC OF THE LARDER; "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 to "Thinking about the animals' benefit is worthwhile to you, it allows you to relieve the guilt you feel as a closet ARA using and abusing animals.." Dutch 2002-08-09 22 http://tinyurl.com/5k3co THE MASS FARMING OF ANIMALS; "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and forcing them through this mass production assembly line "concentration camp" process is cruel. We put innocent farm animals through processes of suffering and early death that we wouldn't subject the most heinous human criminal to." Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz to "I've never said that conditions for farmed hogs are ideal, in many cases they need improving. *That doesn't say that farming animals per se is wrong,* just that in the concentration of production into larger and larger farms, animal welfare has taken a back seat to profits in many cases." Dutch 2004-07-11 http://tinyurl.com/3ktvd COLLATERAL DEATHS; "The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf to "The collateral deaths argument forces them to either retreat bleating denial, or acknowledge the built-in hypocrisy in the philosophy. Dutch 27 Apr 2001 http://tinyurl.com/69728 AVERSION TO MEAT "I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years, the aversion is in full control." Dutch Mar 27 2001 http://tinyurl.com/8u3s5 and "Now after 18 years without meat, I can hardly stand the sight and smell of it, for good reason, it would make me sick if I ate it, no more adaptation." Dutch Dec 25 2001 http://tinyurl.com/ayghu But "I like the taste of everything I eat, otherwise I wouldn't eat it. .... I eat meat because it is good nutritous food, AND I like it." Dutch Jul 15 2004 http://tinyurl.com/7hczx As you can see, there's not a single issue raised here that he hasn't lied about. He's been going round in circles on these issues for years, lying to everyone and himself while trying to convince ARAs they are deluded for believing what they believe, yet it is he, no less, who openly admits to being deluded. "I did find deluding myself quite comfortable, after all who was it hurting?" Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 17 2002 http://tinyurl.com/cmhpo and "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself. Dutch as 'apostate' Mar 19 2002 http://tinyurl.com/7ndj6 and "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005 http://tinyurl.com/94eq3 He's a self-confessed delusional nutcase, and worse still, going by those above quotes he can't even make up his mind on whether deluding himself felt good or not, either. |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:24:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>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. When are you going to hand yourself in to the police for all the suffering and abuse you intentionally cause to animals (collaterally, vicariously and first-hand) for your diet, liar Ditch? >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. "If I ask for the death of animals *and* I am aware that abuse of animals takes place, I become complicit in the deaths *and* the abuse, even though I did not ask for the abuse. In order to avoid moral complicity in such abuse I must stop funding it and find a source of meat where no abuse is taking place, or else stop eating meat altogether. The exact same reasoning applies to crop farming and collateral deaths." Dutch Jan 31 2005 http://tinyurl.com/c3hvf "Because farm animals are sentient beings, and forcing them through this mass production assembly line "concentration camp" process is cruel. We put innocent farm animals through processes of suffering and early death that we wouldn't subject the most heinous human criminal to." Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz You DO know that you abuse animals, both target and collateral, so why don't you do as promised and stop eating meat and vegetables, liar Ditch? "In order to avoid moral complicity in such abuse I must stop funding it and find a source of meat where no abuse is taking place, or else stop eating meat altogether. The exact same reasoning applies to crop farming and collateral deaths." Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz |
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:50:31 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... ><..> >>> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat >>> from animals that died naturally. > >Strictly prohibited. > >'Death from natural causes or accident >27(1) A person shall not take into an abattoir an >animal that has died from natural causes or because >of an accident. >http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/acts376?opendocument > >'FOOD SAFETY > State and Federal Standards and Regulations >.. >It is unlawful to handle, skin, butcher, cut up, dress >or prepare for the making of fertilizers, animal feeding, >or other uses, any animal, or the meat or other parts >of an animal, that died from natural causes, disease, >or accident, in any room of an establishment where >animals are slaughtered, dressed, and prepared for >human food. >http://www.nasda-hq.org/nasda/nasda/...nnsylvania.pdf Thanks for that, Pearl. |
I don't understand how you can't see the moral background behind
society's standard in not allowing people to abuse animals. If a society is apposed to "unnecessary" suffering then that society is just. Do you agree? Animals are capable of suffering, do you agree? I would hardly think that you would argue that animals are unable to feel pain and suffering? And it doesn't matter on what level, if the animal has a central nervous system is it capable of Suffering. This post is directed specifically at Mike. |
Also, a society that believes in animal rights doesn't necessarily
treat animals and humans the same. In the United States it is common practice to keep herd animals in stalls with no privacy and no toilets. They are fed once a day and are allowed no excercise. No State in the Union could even get away with treating prisoners that way. So it doesn't follow that if a society believes in animal rights that they are putting man and animal on an equal footing. That is a strawman Mike. It doesn't logically follow, and I can site examples all day if you want. |
On 24 Sep 2005 15:16:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>pearl wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... >> <..> >> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat >> >> from animals that died naturally. >> >> Strictly prohibited. > >Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous >application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens >distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not >illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat >from animals that died naturally or accidently. And that is true, and something which I've been telling you all along. If meat could be sourced from animals that had been raised in ideal, bucolic settings with ideal veterinarian care, I can't see any valid objection to eating that meat if the animals died from natural causes or were killed in road incidents, as sometimes happens. It wouldn't be vegan fare, but that doesn't mean to say that that meat has an unethical antecedent to it and should be avoided. |
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > > > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > >> snippage... > >> > >> > >> 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? > >> =============================== > >> Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Unless you > >> like > >> to count bugs too. > >> Just because the end product MAY not contain bits of animals, > >> it > >> doesn't mean that they don't die. They do, and very brutally > >> and > >> inhumanely. > > > > That does not answer my question. > =========================== > Yes, it does. There may not be not pieces of animals in the end > product, So as dhld puts it, they do not contribute to the life and death of farm animals. Therefore his list is false. > but animals were 'used' in the production. How were the animals 'used'? |
dh@. wrote: > On 24 Sep 2005 14:39:53 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > >I have been thinking about this discussion a bit more since > >replying and I have a few more things to say about it. Firstly > >that it is nice to be able to have a civil conversation, rather > >than playing insult tennis, for a change so thank you for that, 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. Why don't you believe it would happen? We only need so many homes, offices, factories, etc. > 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 th= e 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 whea= t, > he had to grow instead rice and cassava. "At the beginning the rice was > wonderful, but from then on it never produced the same. Now the only > thing this land is good for is grass and livestock." > [...] > http://www.nri.org/InTheField/bolivia_s_b.htm > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF > It goes on about more detail, and there's a lot more about slash and burn > available other places if you care to check it out. Yes. That is a significant addition to the debate. It shows that just because the deforested land is now used to produce beef doesn't mean that demand for beef was responsible for the initial deforestation. However, demand for meat still creates more demand for land than demand for grains or beans do. The greater the demand for land, the more risk to the rainforest. > > >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. Indeed. Most environmentally responsible farms do use animal fertilizer as far as I know, although effective vegan composts can be made. > 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 =3D 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 =3D 0.6 billion animals killed. > 2. 60 million ha of forage production x 5 animals of > the field =3D 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 =3D 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. > =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF Thank you for posting that. I now see that he doesn't actually come close to answering the question whether or not GFCs cause fewer animal deaths than vegetable production or not. |
pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > pearl wrote: > > > > > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > > <..> > > > >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat > > > >> from animals that died naturally. > > > > > > Strictly prohibited. > > > > Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous application of > > Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens distinction, all meat would be > > ethical to eat if it was not illegal for butchers and supermarkets to > > do buy meat from animals that died naturally or accidently. > > As it is not legal, Derek's application of it is perfectly valid. Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat, but in an alternative society where the laws allowed the selling of meat from animals that died accidentally or of natural causes, it would be prefectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter how badly the animals it came from were treated. Do you support this conclusion? > > > 'Death from natural causes or accident > > > 27(1) A person shall not take into an abattoir an > > > animal that has died from natural causes or because > > > of an accident. > > > http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/acts376?opendocument > > > > > > 'FOOD SAFETY > > > State and Federal Standards and Regulations > > > .. > > > It is unlawful to handle, skin, butcher, cut up, dress > > > or prepare for the making of fertilizers, animal feeding, > > > or other uses, any animal, or the meat or other parts > > > of an animal, that died from natural causes, disease, > > > or accident, in any room of an establishment where > > > animals are slaughtered, dressed, and prepared for > > > human food. > > > http://www.nasda-hq.org/nasda/nasda/...nnsylvania.pdf > > |
Dutch wrote: > 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. Excellent, congratulations Dutch, at long last, you are really getting warm now. Because no *human being* is being harmed or threatened, then MORALLY, nobody deserves to be in jail. WHY? BECAUSE *HUMAN LIFE* IS THE STANARD OF MORAL VALUE. Comprendo now cockhead? Gosh you took a bit of getting through to. Michael Gordge |
Derek wrote: > On 24 Sep 2005 15:16:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >pearl wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > >> <..> > >> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat > >> >> from animals that died naturally. > >> > >> Strictly prohibited. > > > >Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous > >application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens > >distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not > >illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat > >from animals that died naturally or accidently. > > And that is true, and something which I've been telling > you all along. If meat could be sourced from animals > that had been raised in ideal, bucolic settings with ideal > veterinarian care, I can't see any valid objection to eating > that meat if the animals died from natural causes or were > killed in road incidents, as sometimes happens. The point is that, if such settings were available then any mistreatement or slaughter of animals would be a per-accidens property of meat production rather than a per-se property and so *all* meat would become perfectly ethical, by your standards, even if the animal that provided the meat was slaughtered after having been mistreated for most of its life. >It wouldn't > be vegan fare, but that doesn't mean to say that that meat > has an unethical antecedent to it and should be avoided. |
On 30 Sep 2005 06:03:42 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>pearl wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... >> > pearl wrote: >> > > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... >> > > <..> >> > > >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat >> > > >> from animals that died naturally. >> > > >> > > Strictly prohibited. >> > >> > Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous application of >> > Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens distinction, all meat would be >> > ethical to eat if it was not illegal for butchers and supermarkets to >> > do buy meat from animals that died naturally or accidently. >> >> As it is not legal, Derek's application of it is perfectly valid. > >Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat >any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat >that died accidentally or of natural causes That's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that, "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food from road kill or from animals that have died from natural causes..." Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm Why have you chosen to forget what I told you, pesco-vegan? |
On 30 Sep 2005 06:15:12 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 24 Sep 2005 15:16:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >pearl wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... >> >> <..> >> >> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat >> >> >> from animals that died naturally. >> >> >> >> Strictly prohibited. >> > >> >Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous >> >application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens >> >distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not >> >illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat >> >from animals that died naturally or accidently. >> >> And that is true, and something which I've been telling >> you all along. If meat could be sourced from animals >> that had been raised in ideal, bucolic settings with ideal >> veterinarian care, I can't see any valid objection to eating >> that meat if the animals died from natural causes or were >> killed in road incidents, as sometimes happens. > >The point is that The point here is that you don't know what you're talking about concerning Aristotle's distinction, and are ready to lie about your opponent to win your assertions. For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died accidentally or of natural causes" But that's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that, "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food from road kill or from animals that have died from natural causes..." Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan? |
pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message news:1127594017.000442.68110= @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > <..> > > Destroying rainforest to plant soya beans could be described > > as an infringement of AR > > 'Paving The Amazon With Soy... > .. > The sprawling state of Mato Grosso, in central west > Brazil, could be thought a paradise of sorts, at least > from a distance. The lush rainforest of the Amazon > basin, often called the "lungs of the world," straddles > the state, as does the grassy Brazilian savanna or > cerrado. Parrots, jaguars and pumas are just a few > of the abundant species found in the savanna, > considered one of the most biodiverse in the world, > along with endangered species like the maned wolf, > anteater and river-dwelling giant otter. > > The landscape, however, is rapidly being altered > as vast fields of soybeans and cattle ranches > replace grasslands and forests. Soy rules Mato > Grosso and it's not the soy that much of the world > associates with the ostensibly eco-friendly, > vegetarian diet, either. > > In the wake of the Mad Cow disease scare, soy > producers have benefited from increased demand > in affluent countries for meat from cows that are > fed soy meal, rather than animal-based feed. I realise that most of the Amazonian soya goes to feed livestock rather than people but that doesn't mean that people who consume the soya directly are not fueling the demand for it. > .........' > http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/20793/ > > > and spraying insecticide over your crops sure as hell is! > > 'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust > for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic > farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides > used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects > and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to > be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other > animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many > of their habitats. > http://tinyurl.com/d4bm4 > > '..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides > evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic > farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming, > organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves > soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water > pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide > emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission > potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower, > and energy efficiency is usually higher. > ..' > http://tinyurl.com/8anxd > > 'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially > greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the > organic farms, as outlined below: > > Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more > species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found > only on organic farms. > > Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in > autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher > skylark breeding rates. > > Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise > bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas; > one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as > many spider species. > > Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in > numbers of pest butterflies. > > Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries > had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found > in the cropped areas of the fields. > > Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats > were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries > had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift. > ..' Thank you for posting these examples of benefits that organic farming offers compared with more industrial methods. > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm > > > Fish are animals but to my way of thinking, they are not in the same > > league as birds or mammals. > > ' We address the question of pain perception in fish by first > accepting the assumption that it is unlikely that the conscious > perception of pain evolved to simply guide reactions to noxious > events, or to provide an experiential dimension to accompany > reflexes, but rather it allowed an organism to discriminate their > environment in ways that permitted adaptive and flexible > behaviour (Chandroo et al. 2004). The neural systems involved > in nociception and pain perception, and the cognitive processes > resulting in flexible behaviour function, probably evolved as an > interactive dynamic system within the central nervous system > (Chapman and Nakamura 1999). > .. > The learning processes shown by fish include observational > (McGregor et al. 2001), interactive (Top=E1l and Cs=E1nyi 1999), > Pavlovian (Hollis 1984) and avoidance (Zerbolio and Royalty > 1983). Current work shows that learning processes > demonstrated by fish are multifaceted phenomenon that have > clear fitness implications to fish species at various developmental > stages (Brown and Laland 2003; Griffiths 2003; Hoare and > Krause 2003; Kelley and Magurran 2003; Odling-Smee and > Braithwaite 2003). > .. > All teleost fish have elaborate forebrains (Butler and Hodos > 1996), and the degree of forebrain development is correlated > with social behaviour, communication abilities and other > environmental factors that may require integrative cognitive > capacities (Kotrschal et al. 1998). Fish have evolved to > exploit diverse environmental niches, and show concomitant > development within all relevant brain areas. This brain > development may consist of increases or decreases in brain > stem, cerebellar, optic, olfactory, diencephalic and telencephalic > structural mass or complexity (Kotrschal et al. 1998). The > morphological changes that may comprise the representative > brain for any given species are diverse, and contrary to Rose's > generalized assumption, some phylogenetic radiations(e.g. > actinoperygians) show a shift in brain mass from primary > sensory areas towards higher order integration centres > (Kotrschal et al. 1998). In addition, the integration of > cerebellar, optic and telencephalic functions to produce > cognitive responses to the environment may be similar in > fish and mammals (Broglio et al. 2003). > ...' > http://www.aquanet.ca/English/resear...erspective.pdf "According to the triune brain theory developed by Dr. Paul MacLean, Chief of Brain Evolution and Behavior at the National Institutes of Health, you have three brains, not just one. This theory may help you explain some of your behavior, your coworkers' behavior, and the behavior of people you encounter. The brain stem is the reptilian brain. It is a remnant of our prehistoric past. The reptilian brain acts on stimulus and response. It is useful for quick decisions without thinking. The reptilian brain focuses on survival, and takes over when you are in danger and you don't have time to think. In a world of survival of the fittest, the reptilian brain is concerned with getting food and keeping you from becoming food. The reptilian brain is fear driven, and takes over when you feel threatened or endangered. A second part of the brain is the limbic stem or mammalian brain. The limbic stem is the root of emotions and feelings. It affects moods and bodily functions. The neocortex is the most evolutionary advanced part of your brain. It governs your ability to speak, think, and solve problems. The neocortex affects your creativity and your ability to learn. The neocortex makes up about 80 percent of the brain." http://www.terrybragg.com/Article_Reptilianbrain.htm Fish do not have a limbic stem or a neocortex. I doubt that fish are as devoid of sentience as plants but I also doubt that they have the same degree of sentience as birds or mammals. > [" Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and > fillet other animals - have had an understandable penchant > for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction > between humans and "animals" is essential if we are to > bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, > eat them - without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. > It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward > other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The > behaviour of other animals renders such pretensions specious. > They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan & > Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992 ] Is lethally poisoning an animal, destroying its home/habitat, etc. any easier to justify than filleting one? I ask because these practises are commonly associated with vegetable production. It is good to respect animal life but we still need to eat. > > > >> >Here are some of the "principles" I was referring to: > > > >> > > > > >> >Be thrifty concerning land usage. > > Variety of ocean's fish down by half, study says > Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post > July 29, 2005 FISH0729 > > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The variety of species in the world's > oceans has dropped by as much as 50 percent in the past 50 years, > according to a paper published today in the journal Science. > > A combination of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change > has narrowed the range of fish across the globe, wrote biologists > Boris Worm and Ransom Myers of Dalhousie University in Nova > Scotia and three other scientists. > > In some areas, such as the ocean off northwest Australia where a > wide variety of tuna and billfish used to thrive, diversity has declined > precipitously. > > "Where you used to put out a fishing line 50 years ago and catch > 10 species, now you catch five species for the same amount of effort," > Worm said Thursday. "That's a recipe for ecological collapse and > disaster." > > The study, which marks the first worldwide mapping of predatory > fish diversity, identified five remaining spots that still have a rich > variety of species, two of them in U.S. waters: the east coast of > Florida, south of Hawaii, near Australia's Great Barrier Reef, near > Sri Lanka and in the South Pacific. > > "These areas are really of global significance," Worm said. "It's > really important to protect them now, because 20 years from > now they may not be there." > > The total catch for tuna and billfish has increased as much as > tenfold over the past 50 years, prompting fish diversity to > plummet, researchers said. Overfishing is the main reason, but > inadvertent catches of other fish also factors in, Worm said. > > The study also found that, in the Pacific, the variety of fish > increased when the weather pattern known as El Ni=F1o swept in > and brought warmer surface water, but then contracted when > temperatures dropped. > > Predatory fish appear to like medium temperatures around 77 > degrees Fahrenheit, Myers said. "Like Goldilocks and the three > bears, ocean animals don't like it too hot or too cold, they like > it just right." > > To conduct the study, Worm and Myers -- along with Marcel > Sandow and Andreas Oschlies of Germany's Leibniz Institute > for Marine Science and Heike Lotze of Britain's National > Oceanography Centre -- used data from Japanese long-line > fisheries going back to the 1950s, which they cross-referenced > with scientific observer data from the United States and Australia. > > The researchers determined that tuna and billfish are indicators > of wider ocean diversity and that these species are disappearing > in many areas. Mid-size predators -- snake mackerel and > pelagic stingrays -- are taking their place. > > Worm compared the diminishing range of species to a poorly > distributed stock portfolio that's ill-equipped to respond to > economic and environmental shifts. > > "As [fishing] markets change, as the climate changes, you > have nothing to fall back on," he said. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../28/AR2005072= 801752.html > > ' Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same data > to show that commercial fishing had depleted the world's > oceans of 90 per cent of the overall abundance of big fish > that flourished 50 years ago. > ....' > http://www.seaotters.org/CurrentIssu...fm?DocID=3D279 > > THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND > ECONOMIC COSTS OF DEPLETING THE WORLD'S > OCEANS > ............ > http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ite...ijee/somma.htm There are serious environmental problems associated with may commercial fisheries, just as with commercial crop production. In the case of crop-production you can minimize these problems by looking for the organic label. In the case of fish, you can look for labels like MSC certified or handline-caught. > > > >> >Eat a healthy, tasty and balanced diet. > > 'Brenda C Davis and Penny M Kris-Etherton, Achieving > optimal essential fatty acid status in vegetarians: current > knowledge and practical implications. American Journal > of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 640S-646S, > September 2003 > ... > Given the rate of conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA, > it has been suggested that a safe and adequate ratio for > the vegetarian and vegan populations would be in the > range of 2:1-4:1 (22). This can best be achieved by > increasing ALA in the diet and decreasing LA, if indicated > (see below). > .. > .. it is important to ensure that there are sufficient amounts > of ALA, which is necessary for the production of EPA and > DHA. Most healthy vegetarians would be well advised to > double their intake of ALA, providing 1% of energy from > n-3 fatty acids or 1.1 g/1000 cal. For those with increased > needs or decreased capacity to convert, an intake of 2% > of energy or 2.2 g/1000 cal may be necessary. The primary > sources of ALA are selected seeds, nuts, and legumes > (flaxseed, hempseed, canola, walnuts, and soy) and the > green leaves of plants, including phytoplankton and algae. > .. > Practical guidelines for achieving optimal EFA intake in > vegetarians are as follows. 1) Make a wide variety of > whole plant foods the foundation of the diet. 2) Get most > fat from whole foods-nuts, seeds, olives, avocados, and > soy foods. 3) If using concentrated fats and oils, select > those rich in monounsaturated fats, such as olive, canola, > or nut oils. n-3-Rich oils can also be used but should not > be heated. Moderate use of n-6-rich oils is recommended. > 4) Limit intake of processed foods and deep-fried foods > rich in trans and n-6 fatty acids. 5) Reduce intake of foods > rich in saturated fat and cholesterol. 6) Include foods rich > in n-3 fatty acids in the daily diet. Aim for 2-4 g ALA/d. > 7) Consider using a direct source of DHA. Aim for > 100-300 mg/d. > .. > .. a DHA-rich microalgae that provides 10-40% DHA > by dry weight .. is currently available in supplement form. > ...' > http://tinyurl.com/65xn7 Most people's nutritional needs can be adequately supplied by a vegan diet. However, I believe that eating fish allows me a greater margin for error than a strict vegan diet would. > > > >> >Respect animal life. >=20 > Yes. |
Derek wrote: > > Exactly! In fact his whole Usenet history is full of > contradictions and changes in stance on a whim. > > Over the years, since Dutch first appeared on the > animal related groups pretending to promote the > proposition of animal rights, he's changed his stance > on this proposition so many times that it's difficult to > know when he's actually telling the truth. All his quotes > below come with a date and a link, and I've arranged > them in chronological order so you can see his ever- > changing switches in position more clearly. > > He first came here claiming to be a believer in > the proposition of animal rights. Well done Derek, thankyou, these stupid dozey dopey commie scum really do need exposing as the totally ****ed in the head contradicting idiots and liars that they are. Michael Gordge |
|
Derek wrote: > On 30 Sep 2005 06:15:12 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 24 Sep 2005 15:16:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >pearl wrote: > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > >> >> <..> > >> >> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat > >> >> >> from animals that died naturally. > >> >> > >> >> Strictly prohibited. > >> > > >> >Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous > >> >application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens > >> >distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not > >> >illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat > >> >from animals that died naturally or accidently. > >> > >> And that is true, and something which I've been telling > >> you all along. If meat could be sourced from animals > >> that had been raised in ideal, bucolic settings with ideal > >> veterinarian care, I can't see any valid objection to eating > >> that meat if the animals died from natural causes or were > >> killed in road incidents, as sometimes happens. > > > >The point is that > > The point here is that you don't know what you're talking > about concerning Aristotle's distinction, I have repeatedly demonstrated that I do. A per-se property of a product is one that is absolutely necessary for that product to exist. Anything else is a per-accidens property. Using this definition, I showed that the slaughter of animals was a per-accidens property of meat. In order to enable your logic to conclude that the consumption of meat was unethical, you arbitrarily decided to change the product under consideration to meat that can be legally purhased. > and are ready to > lie about your opponent to win your assertions. In sharp contrast to the staggering example of dishonesty, you indulge in next paragraph, I have never lied about you. > For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's > logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort > of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died > accidentally or of natural causes" Here is that quote in full: "Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat, but in an alternative society where the laws allowed the selling of meat from animals that died accidentally or of natural causes, it would be prefectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter how badly the animals it came from were treated." Why did you snip the middle part of that quote? By doing so you have completely changed its meaning; a profoundly dishonest thing for you to do. > But that's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that, > > "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food > from road kill or from animals that have died from natural > causes..." > Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm > > Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan? I haven't forgotten the above. Neither have I forgetton the fact that you argued that it is perfectly ethical to consume goods whose production involved *deliberate* animal deaths, as long as these deaths were a per-accidens property of the product in question. I haven't forgotten that you have incorrectly claimed the deaths caused in animal research to be a per-accidens property of all medicinal drugs, even those discovered on the basis of knowledge acquired using animal research. I will not forget your dishonest editing of my quote either. |
Dutch wrote: > "Dave" > wrote > > > > Derek wrote: > > >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on > >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with > >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he > >> >provided didn't he? > >> > >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't > >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the > >> terms accurately and clearly. > > > > Viz: > > > > "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction > > (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something > > is classified as "essence" it means that that property is > > always absolutely necessary for that object's existence." > > > > Meat can be sourced from animals that have died of natural > > causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely > > necessary for the existence of meat. Gotcha! > > Absolutely correct, and to illustrate vegan hypocrisy, note that they > regularly attempt to argue that consuming plant-based products is morally > superior because it is (supposedly) theoretically possible to obtain plant > foods without killing any animals, even though very few of them actually do. I believe I have exposed some holes in Derek's logic but even if I conceeded his distinction, I doubt he could explain what purpose his ethics are supposed to serve beyond justifying his dietary prejudices. So far he has declined my challenge for him to do so. > >> If you still have a problem > >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you > >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster. > >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan', > >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh? > > > > There is nothing stupid about the nym 'Pesco-vegan'. > > When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too > > simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed > > appropriate for me. That is all. > > Note that this attack is coming from a person who claims to abhor vehemently > the practice of attacking the person rather than the argument. |
On 30 Sep 2005 08:46:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 30 Sep 2005 06:15:12 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 15:16:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >pearl wrote: >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... >> >> >> <..> >> >> >> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat >> >> >> >> from animals that died naturally. >> >> >> >> >> >> Strictly prohibited. >> >> > >> >> >Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous >> >> >application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens >> >> >distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not >> >> >illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat >> >> >from animals that died naturally or accidently. >> >> >> >> And that is true, and something which I've been telling >> >> you all along. If meat could be sourced from animals >> >> that had been raised in ideal, bucolic settings with ideal >> >> veterinarian care, I can't see any valid objection to eating >> >> that meat if the animals died from natural causes or were >> >> killed in road incidents, as sometimes happens. >> > >> >The point is that >> >> The point here is that you don't know what you're talking >> about concerning Aristotle's distinction, > >I have repeatedly demonstrated that I do. A per-se property >of a product is one that is absolutely necessary for that >product to exist. Anything else is a per-accidens property. >Using this definition, I showed that the slaughter of animals >was a per-accidens property of meat. Rather, that's what I've been saying all along, but not where farmed meat is concerned because the deaths associated with it are always absolutely necessary for that meat to exist. >> and are ready to >> lie about your opponent to win your assertions. > >In sharp contrast to the staggering example of dishonesty, >you indulge in next paragraph, I have never lied about you. You have intentionally misrepresented my position by claiming my "logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat" ; you lied about me. >> For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's >> logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort >> of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died >> accidentally or of natural causes" > >Here is that quote in full: > >"Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to >eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat, That misrepresents my position, as you well know from what I wrote earlier; "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food from road kill or from animals that have died from natural causes..." Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm >but >in an alternative society where the laws allowed the selling >of meat from animals that died accidentally or of natural causes, >it would be prefectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter how badly >the animals it came from were treated." That too is a total misrepresentation of my position. >Why did you snip the middle part of that quote? Because it and the first part of your quote totally misrepresent my position. I do not believe that it's "perfectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter how badly the animals it came from were treated." >> But that's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that, >> >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural >> causes..." >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm >> >> Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan? > >I haven't forgotten the above. Then you should not have lied about my position. |
I figured it was about time that you crawed out of the woodwork. You and Mikey make a great pair. |
"Derek" > wrote a short novel Wow, you've been busy in your absence I see. |
"Derek" > wrote > On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:24:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>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. > > When are you going to hand yourself in to the police Careful Derek, you're almost addressing the issue... |
"Diogenes" > wrote >I don't understand how you can't see the moral background behind > society's standard in not allowing people to abuse animals. Easy, he's a ****ing bonehead. |
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:22:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >>Dutch wrote: >>>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 It takes into consideration a FACT which you "ARAs" hate to see considered. >to serve your own interests. You want people to DISREGARD THE FACT because is works against your dishonest insistance that their elimination is the most ethical possible course. >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? Why can't you think of anything but yourself? When you bitch about me you are still only thinking about yourself, and feel threatened that I suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to their elimination. >> 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. How? >I just despise it because it's self-serving, grotty >sophism. You're not capable of thinking of anything but yourself. LOL...this is funny...here's you: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" > Message-ID: > What you need to show is how the life *of a chicken* in a barn somewhere has ethical value to ME ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ notice there is absolute disregard for anything to do with the animals, or their welfare, or anything in consideration of them. Because you are not capable of considering anything except YOU. That has been established and pointed out. Now here's the funny part for me, but it should make you feel the shame you continually earn for yourself: there is no ethical value to speak of. You would have to have some degree of consideration for the animals in order to understand, and as I've been pointing out to you for years you have none at all. You're not even able to attempt the concept. >> The idea of you ever deliberately contributing >> to life for cage free layers is absurd! > >Why? I can't believe you would do something to deliberately contribute to decent lives for anything of course, since for years now you've been maniacally opposing the suggestion. >I prefer to avoid supporting battery cage production. Bullshit. You don't pay MORE just to contribute to life for one type of animal you don't care about instead of another. LOL. As opposed as you are to deliberately contributing to life for animals, you're not going to pay more money just to do it. As I said to begin with, the idea of you doing it is absurd! You wouldn't get any moral victory for it anyway according to you, so quit pretending that you do it. It's insulting to all of us who deliberately buy them to promote decent lives for future animals, and it's insulting to the birds too imo. >>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". Are there any animals that you would deliberately encourage life for? If so, explain why for them but not for any animals raised for food. |
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> 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. > > Excellent, congratulations Dutch, at long last, you are really getting > warm now. WTF are you talking about? I just informed you that your position on this issue has NOTHING to do with human life. > Because no *human being* is being harmed or threatened, then MORALLY, > nobody deserves to be in jail. > WHY? BECAUSE *HUMAN LIFE* IS THE STANARD OF MORAL VALUE. Now you're equivocating between *human being* and *HUMAN LIFE*. I knew it was only a matter of time before you started with the equivocations, what took you so long? > Comprendo now cockhead? You're out to lunch Mikey. > Gosh you took a bit of getting through to. I thought I had run into hammerheads on usenet, until I met you. Here's some reading material for you, from the country you call home. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/legis...l-welfare-act/ Congratulations, your country is a world leader in modernizing animal welfare legislation. If you abuse or neglect an animal in NZ you can expect to end up in court, and to be labelled as a pariah. |
"Derek" > wrote > Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan? He didn't forget it bonehead, it CONTRADICTS a precious categorical statement you made. |
> wrote > > Derek wrote: >> >> Exactly! In fact his whole Usenet history is full of >> contradictions and changes in stance on a whim. >> >> Over the years, since Dutch first appeared on the >> animal related groups pretending to promote the >> proposition of animal rights, he's changed his stance >> on this proposition so many times that it's difficult to >> know when he's actually telling the truth. All his quotes >> below come with a date and a link, and I've arranged >> them in chronological order so you can see his ever- >> changing switches in position more clearly. >> >> He first came here claiming to be a believer in >> the proposition of animal rights. > > Well done Derek, thankyou, these stupid dozey dopey commie scum really > do need exposing as the totally ****ed in the head contradicting idiots > and liars that they are. Derek is a full-blown Animal Rights Advocate Mike. He believes that it is immoral to buy meat at the supermarket or to use animals in medical research. He believes that there is no moral difference between humans and other animals. All the things you mistakenly accused me of are ACTUALLY TRUE of Derek. Nice choice of allies... The reason he attacks me with such venom is that I have taken him apart systematically over the years. In fact he has been reduced to doing little else but follow me around like a wounded puppy pasting his pathetic array of Google snips. |
On 30 Sep 2005 05:52:07 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: > >> On 24 Sep 2005 14:39:53 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >I have been thinking about this discussion a bit more since >> >replying and I have a few more things to say about it. Firstly >> >that it is nice to be able to have a civil conversation, rather >> >than playing insult tennis, for a change so thank you for that, 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. > >Why don't you believe it would happen? We only need so many >homes, offices, factories, etc. You exist on Earth but live in your dream world. >> 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. > >Yes. That is a significant addition to the debate. It shows that just >because >the deforested land is now used to produce beef doesn't mean that >demand for >beef was responsible for the initial deforestation. However, demand for >meat still >creates more demand for land than demand for grains or beans do. Not in these cases. He wanted to grow maize and wheat, but later had to settle for rice and cassava, and after that had to settle for grass for livestock. They weren't feeding grain to the livestock, if that's what you're thinking. [...] >> The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should >> Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet. >> >> S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State >> University, Corvallis, OR 97331. >> >> Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the >> European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001, >> pp 440-450. >> >> Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals. [...] >Thank you for posting that. I now see that he doesn't actually >come close to answering the question whether or not GFCs cause >fewer animal deaths than vegetable production or not. You have convinced me that you are entirely clueless, and that you will most likely remain so for the rest of your life. Not at all unusual in these ngs. Here's a clue, but they never seem to grasp it: some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of vegetables. Here's another one that you won't grasp and will probably despise: some types of meat provide decent lives for livestock. Read the post on Decision-making and it will help you to understand why you just can't care. "ARAs" make deliberate use of cognitive dissonance, and they probably manipulated you years ago. Now you're stuck...probably for life. Here's something about it specifically from the same discussion group: __________________________________________________ _______ http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/4334 We all, all over the world, suffer from cognitive dissonance regarding many issues. And no one could argue that it is a good thing. Why then do we say that politicians who change their minds (perhaps with good reason) are "flip-flopping?" Myers points out that we seem to consider it "a sin to change one's mind in light of new information" - But isn't "the greater sin a self-justifying refusal to learn from mistakes?" I wonder if there are other good examples of cognitive dissonance in world politics that people can think of? And, most of all, I wonder how one can answer to cognitive dissonance in oneself and in others, especially regarding such important matters. posted by jb at 02:19PM UTC ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> snippage... >> >> >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> =============================== >> >> Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Unless you >> >> like >> >> to count bugs too. >> >> Just because the end product MAY not contain bits of >> >> animals, >> >> it >> >> doesn't mean that they don't die. They do, and very >> >> brutally >> >> and >> >> inhumanely. >> > >> > That does not answer my question. >> =========================== >> Yes, it does. There may not be not pieces of animals in the >> end >> product, > > So as dhld puts it, they do not contribute to the life and > death of farm animals. Therefore his list is false. > >> but animals were 'used' in the production. > > How were the animals 'used'? ============================= They are 'consumed' in the process of making anything you purchase. Is this too hard for your 2 remaining brain cells to comprehend, killer? > |
"Derek" > wrote > On 30 Sep 2005 07:01:45 -0700, wrote: >>Well done Derek, thankyou, > > My pleasure, Mike. Get a room you two... Mike doesn't even believe animals deserve legal protection from abuse, but that's a minor point compared to your silly little vendetta against me, right? |
"Dave" > wrote > I believe I have exposed some holes in Derek's logic You did, but he will NEVER admit it. but even if > I conceeded his distinction, I doubt he could explain what purpose > his ethics are supposed to serve beyond justifying his dietary > prejudices. So far he has declined my challenge for him to do so. Exchanges with Derek are... different. He'll spin and twist and baffle you with bullshit until you just give up in frustration. |
<dh@.> wrote > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:22:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote > >>>Dutch wrote: > >>>>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 > > It takes into consideration a FACT which you "ARAs" hate to > see considered. Not only ARAs hate to see it considered, pretty much everyone does. <snip same old shit> |
Diogenes wrote: > I don't understand how you can't see the moral background behind > society's standard in not allowing people to abuse animals. *WHAT* ****ing *standard*? Define the standard that your morals are measured against is it, a *human beings life* OR an animal's life? Dutch claimed (before he claimed he doesn't believe in animal rights, that was after claiming he does, **** knows what he believes in, I digress) Dutch claims, that an animal has *a right to a house*, presumably because not giving an animal a right to a house was *abusing* that animal and therefore, according to him, immoral. What Dutch and you dont explain IS *WHOSE ****ing house, what ****ing house* dose that animal have a right to live in? If society really wants a house for a horse of course, then why doesn't that society build and pay for that ****ing house, for the horse of course? If a society doesn't want to see an animal abused, then that soceity ought own those ****ing animals and do with them as that society wants. Forcing an animal owner *an individual human being* to use *his energy* to build a horse a house of course, IS to claim ownership over that human being and IS abusing that human being's right to be the owner of himself, IS that ****ing moral? Start at the beginning with your ****ing morals and END your morals there, *the human being* its a very good place to start AND finish the standard of moral values. Are you done yet? Michael Gordge |
You're right about human rights, mike. No one is arguing human rights.
But if human life is the "moral standard" how do you define human? Don't lump me in with Dutch, I'm just a fan of lively discussion, as you clearly are. Doesn't something have a right to be protected from needless suffering? Just because it is not a human suffering, shouldn't we not allow people to abuse something just because it is weaker than they are? |
"Diogenes" > wrote .... > You're right about human rights, mike. No one is arguing human rights. > But if human life is the "moral standard" how do you define human? > Don't lump me in with Dutch, I'm just a fan of lively discussion, as > you clearly are. That won't work with him. > Doesn't something have a right to be protected from > needless suffering? Just because it is not a human suffering, shouldn't > we not allow people to abuse something just because it is weaker than > they are? We're certainly optimists if nothing else, trying to reason with people like him. |
Diogenes wrote: > You're right about human rights, mike. No one is arguing human rights. You most certainly are when you give animals rights at the expense of human rights. eg forcing man to build a house for a horse, of course, means you are claiming ownership of that man, for the sake of a ****en horse. And when that man may not even have a house of his own, or when he may have sick children, then you most certainly are placing the animal's life above that of man. And that IS exactly what happens with these animal rights anti human geeks, like Dutch. Its a slightly different different story but the idea behind the law is identical, a farmer in the North Island of New Zealand last year was sent to jail because he cut down some scrub on his farm. His crime? his neighbours were tree huggers (the same as animal rights geeks) and they managed to get a local law passed, forbidding him to cut down his scrub. > But if human life is the "moral standard" how do you define human? *The rational animal* > Don't lump me in with Dutch, I'm just a fan of lively discussion, as > you clearly are. Doesn't something have a right to be protected from > needless suffering? Rights can only apply to those that understand what they mean and can uphold them, *the rational animal* the human being. A lion does not breach the right of a Zebra, neither does a cat a mouse's right. > Just because it is not a human suffering, shouldn't > we not allow people to abuse something just because it is weaker than > they are? I have explained this a thousand times, man needs man (not animals) to help solve the problems of human survival. Human survival requires (a) an individual to act, he cant act unless he thinks, (b) a constant war that must be waged against nature, that does not mean nature is evil, it just means it has challenges for man that require a lot of thought, more than the thought of one man. Take every issue, even human rights, right back down to a sensory level of perception, apply *reason* Go back to the Robinson and Friday story, you are Robinson all alone on an Island, one day a chap turns up you call him Friday. For the sake of speed lets assume Friday has a good grasp of your language. Over a period of time you observe Friday has many great attributes that could make your life a lot happier, indeed he may even have what you need to save your life. HOWEVER, one day you observe Friday beating the living shit out of his dog Saturday, you feel for the animal, however you have enough knowledge of Friday to know that if you use force against him, you could either come off second best, or he may never share his knowledge with you again, so what do you do, to (a) give the poor wee dog a bot of hope (b) still keep Friday in a mood to share his ideas with you? Hopefully you've decided that you could attempt trade, ie peaceful persuasion, even not talking to him may do the trick, a little reverse psychology perhaps. Now add another person to the Island, why would you want to act any different? Now add a million people to the island, do you still think forcing a human being to conform to YOUR values is a good idea, when the person you want to force, may one day be the person who saves your life? Human life is the only standard by which one must judge the morality of one's actions. Michael Gordge |
Derek wrote: > That he is, rather. You wouldn't want to be accused of > generalising to win your assertion, now would you? Derek get this straight, ALL people who claim a bogus mob rule right to force their values upon other people who, dont wish nor cause nor threaten them any harm, in this context the, albethey well intentioned, animal rights geeks, are ALL ****en liars, they ARE ALL ****en anti human life scum and make no mistake about it. Michael Gordge |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter