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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2005, 05:31 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default vegetarians aren't hypocrites

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:37:30 -0400, "larrylook" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:49:22 -0400, "larrylook" wrote:

Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
find this terribly distasteful.

But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less
and
have good intentions.


I've noticed that often when the truth is pointed out, vegans will lie
about it.


The truth regarding what?


Human influence on animals.

That the myth of the grass fed cow


That's one.

(GFC) is
correct? Most people are eating factory farmed meat and could care less.
So what the vegetarian is doing is an impovement and creates less CD's.


Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the killing and
should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to minimize
death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly
about the GFC label and it's validity


If Derek cared he would encourage people to find out if the animals had
been fed grain, and how much, etc. Instead he dishonestly pretends that
grass raised beef is not available, because he doesn't care and does NOT
want people to deliberately contribute to fewer cds by eating grass raised
animal products. I know it. You know it. And I know that you know it.


If Derek cares,


If 2goo cared about animals he would lie less, and very possibly not at all.
But he does lie, and he lies about animals, and he does it all the time.

he would point out to people here that if they eat
vegetarian they are killing less, since you guys are telling them that
vegetarianism doesn't accomplish anything and they should eat GFC's to
reduce CD's. But this is impractical since everyone is busy making a living
and can't be researching everything on their plate. They need some basic
guidelines to follow. They need "Ethical eating for Dummies".


would certainly matter greatly to the
vegetarian.


Here are some "vegetarian" products which contain egg whites,
contributing
to the cds involved with raising chickens as well as those involved with
the
grain in the products, and also contributing to battery farming:

Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
and Prosage Patties

Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties

Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties

Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets

Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties, Chick Patties,
Chik'n Nuggets, Corn Dogs


Explain to me how egg whites makes any difference? I really don't
understand?


It's hard to believe you could be as inconsiderate as you claim
to be.

Explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old please.


They are contributing to the cds involved with raising chickens AS
WELL AS the cds involved with the grain used in making the products.
They are also contributing to battery farming laying hens, which some
of us feel is a poor method of keeping chickens.

So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC.


It's for people who actually care about human influence
on animals that the info is really posted. We see that Etter
cares more about livestock than any vegans posting to
these ngs, and spends most of his posts pointing out how
vegans are lying about things related to human influence
on animals, afaik.


It's not very clear to me that Rick would give a darn about what's on his
dinner plate (in terms of ethics).


It's very clear that human influence on animals is much more significant
to him than it is to you, and almost certainly than it ever could be to you.
If it ever could be significant to you, how do you think that could possibly
come about?

It's not an expressed goal of his. It's
not clear to me that if he found out veal cows weren't treated well in his
area he's stop eating them, or if chicken weren't raised ethically he's stop
eating them. He keeps talking about the myth of the GFC, but it's not
clear that if he moved somewhere where you couldn't get CFG he wouldn't
switch to factory farmed meat.


How
can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it?


You don't care.


How do you know I don't care?


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

You presume too much. You must have a degree
in psychology knowing that all the vegetarians out there don't care about
animals. This is so preposterous.

That's the point. So of course you surely
won't care enough to make any changes that promote life
and death for livestock, even if it would reduce the number
of overall deaths which you contribute to. Right? Right!!

You guys need to come up with a better argument.


You don't care. You won't care. It's for people who might
care that the info is presented, and it's for people who might
care that you oppose the info. You don't care, and you don't
want anyone else to care.


Maybe if you say it enough you'll believe it.


Maybe you could say or do something to change my mind,
but I doubt you ever will. I invite you to try.

I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing
some
good and that bothers you.


It's that you don't care, and can't be made to care, though
you dishonestly pretend that you do care. That has bothered
me for most of my life.


I'll give you something else you can let bother you. That the majority of
people don't care a bit about pain and suffering when they eat a meat.


I know that. But those people don't lie and pretend to care about
animals like you do. They admittedly don't care. You prove that you
don't care either, but dishonestly say you do. You are worse imo,
because of your incredible dishonesty.

They could care less. Look at the audience at a bullfight. They're having
a grand time. Why don't you worry about that?


Those people don't lie and pretend to care about animals like you do.
Your dishonesty is contemptible.

You have missplaced worries.

But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
of animals is worthwhile?


Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident that I'm much
more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you are. And
so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.


How much do you expect this CFG thing to catch on with the public?


I have no expectations, but we can see that you do NOT want it to
happen. So we can very safely say that I would like to see it happen,
and you would like to prevent it.

Is there
a huge public outcry for GCF's. I don't know.


I don't really get that impression.


That's because you can't care about the animals, so you can't
imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate livestock,
not provide decent lives for them, even in situations where doing
so would significantly reduce the number of animals deaths per
serving of food. You can't be made to care.


Have a little faith in me, Mr. Optimistic ;-)


How could I? I would like to see food animals deliberately
provided with decent lives. You would like to see food animals
prevented from existing. How could I possibly have faith that
you want something good for the animals we raise to eat, when
we both know very well that you don't want them to exist at all?


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-09-2005, 05:36 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:00:20 GMT, "rick" wrote:

No one says vegetarianism doesn't "DO"
anything.


A good way to think about it is that if vegans could do what
they try to do, they would be "doing" for animals what dead
people do. Nothing.

The point is that it is not the magic, automatic
paridise for animals that you like to delude yourself about.


Which animals could vegetarians think they're providing
anything for?
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2005, 03:53 AM
larrylook
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How do you know I don't care?

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


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


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2005, 05:36 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


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


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

You really love your ignorant strawmen, don't you killer? Who
here eats chimp, dog, or dolphin?
On the other hand, you do kill far more mammals, birds, reptiles,
fish and amphibians than necessary, hypocrite

But then, you have continued to prove that you must love all that
blood dripping on your hands...






  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2005, 08:27 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


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


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


So saving animal lives is not your main priority, it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?





  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2005, 05:47 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0400, "larrylook" wrote:

How do you know I don't care?


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


I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
when she died.


You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
which is something you would hate to do.

But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find the
act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be repugnant.


I sure do pitty your kids...and probably so do their friends. You
would have to work really hard to get a grip on reality, and this little
exercise in the truth about human influence on animals *could* be
a great help to you. But you can't get yourself to care, and of
course no one else can make you. So you remain in the twisted
grotesque world of your own creation, no doubt at the expense of
others who must put up with you. You probably won't admit it, but
I'll bet other people tell you that.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2005, 05:49 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


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

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


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


So saving animal lives is not your main priority,


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

it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?


It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
animals by being vegan or by eating meat. All they can do is contribute
to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it deliberately.

People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock. People
can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the same
time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of vegetable
products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.

Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:

Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food to
raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
Message-ID:

Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.

"This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and
what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher? Revered moralist, he
might plead, fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and tomorrow
but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine
intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me,
thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray
thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If,
then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."

Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.

Spare all of us, ****wit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
At one time he pretended to understand that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
or negative value to the animal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
obviously did.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2005, 06:52 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[email protected] wrote
The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
which is something you would hate to do.


"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until* you
agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
issue. Vegans' stance that they should never be born is NOT a source of
criticism of veganism any more than it would be a source of moral criticism
of a farmer who decides for economic reasons to have a smaller herd of
cattle. It's high time you get off that kick David, it's an absurd argument.


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2005, 07:09 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


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

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

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


So saving animal lives is not your main priority,


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


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

it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?


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


Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
prevent future animals from being born, or as they see it, they *save* the
animals from being born into an abbreviated life marked by suffering,
deprivation and exploitation.

All they can do is contribute
to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
deliberately.


They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is nothing
worthy of criticism.

People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.


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

People
can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
same
time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
vegetable
products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.


I have no reason to be opposed to it ****wit. I am opposed to one thing in
this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of the
Larder, and I will continue to oppose it.

Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:

Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
to
raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.


How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?

__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
Message-ID:

Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.

"This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
and
what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher? Revered moralist, he
might plead, fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and tomorrow
but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my
porcine
intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me,
thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I
pray
thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If,
then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."

Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my
flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.

Spare all of us, ****wit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
At one time he pretended to understand that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
or negative value to the animal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
obviously did.


You are one confused, ****ed-up redneck ****wit.


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-09-2005, 01:38 AM
larrylook
 
Posts: n/a
Default


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0400, "larrylook" wrote:

How do you know I don't care?

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


I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
when she died.


You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
which is something you would hate to do.


So the farmer who acts to create more future animals is morally better than
the one who doesn't? The person who has 4 kids is better than the person
who has 2 who is better than the person who has 0. This seems absurd to me.
If someone sterilizes his dog he is less moral because he prevents future
lives. I don't think you can put future lives into the equation like this.
It makes no sense to me. I beef farmer is not doing something noble or
commendable simply because he takes steps to create further cow lives. If I
don't want more rabbits around my garden and I feed the rabbits a food that
makes them unable to breed, I don't think I've done something unethical. I
haven't killed these future lives and I'm not morally resposible for them.
You need to think this over a bit.




  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-09-2005, 03:01 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


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


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

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

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

So saving animal lives is not your main priority,


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


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

it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?


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


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


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

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


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

marked by suffering,
deprivation


Some have horrible lives. Some have decent lives. Some have
good lives. To you it makes no difference what the quality of
their lives are...it is all exploitation to you.

and exploitation.


To me that is an ignorant, shallow way to think.

All they can do is contribute
to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
deliberately.


They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is nothing
worthy of criticism.

People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.


Only by consuming selectively,


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

simply consuming does not do that.


I never said it does.

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


I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point out.
For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:

1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
contribute to their elimination.
5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
some vegetable products.
6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.
7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.

People
can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
same
time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
vegetable
products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.


I have no reason to be opposed to it ****wit. I am opposed to one thing in
this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of the
Larder,


And of course I'm opposed to the Logic of the Fantastic Singing Pig.

and I will continue to oppose it.

Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:

Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
to
raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.


How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?


1. Your insistence that we can't take the lives of animals into consideration
when we contemplate human influence on animals.
2. Your insistence that raising animals for food is like raising children for
sex slaves.
3. Your insistence that a speech by an imaginary talking pig written by a
founder of "AR", somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals
benefit from farming.
4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
for "AR" organizations.
5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than deliberately
contribute to decent lives for food animals.
6. Things like this:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:17:31 -0800

it *is* pure exploitation. The fact that animals are alive (ie. "get to experience
life" as you put it) does not offset that fact, in fact it arguably adds to it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700

Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800

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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800

I am an animal rights believer.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
[...]
At one time he pretended to understand that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
or negative value to the animal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
obviously did.


You are one confused, ****ed-up redneck ****wit.


Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy to
understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-09-2005, 03:01 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:52:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
which is something you would hate to do.


"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until* you
agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
issue.


It's not like that for everyone. You "ARAs" decide in advance that
you believe the animals morally should not be born regardless of the
quality that their lives would have. I believe the quality of their lives
should be taken into consideration.



  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-09-2005, 03:07 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:38:43 -0400, "larrylook" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0400, "larrylook" wrote:

How do you know I don't care?

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

I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
when she died.


You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
which is something you would hate to do.


So the farmer who acts to create more future animals is morally better than
the one who doesn't?


He certainly provides life for more animals, whether it's "morally better"
or not. Of course a person like yourself who hates the animals could never
feel it's morally better, regardless of the quality of life.

The person who has 4 kids is better than the person
who has 2 who is better than the person who has 0. This seems absurd to me.
If someone sterilizes his dog he is less moral because he prevents future
lives. I don't think you can put future lives into the equation like this.


I can because I can also consider quality of life, and that a decent life
is a positive thing. I can believe that sometimes it's good to encourage life
and sometimes it's not. You can't do either.

It makes no sense to me.


I believe you.

I beef farmer is not doing something noble or
commendable simply because he takes steps to create further cow lives. If I
don't want more rabbits around my garden and I feed the rabbits a food that
makes them unable to breed, I don't think I've done something unethical.


Neither do I.

I haven't killed these future lives and I'm not morally resposible for them.
You need to think this over a bit.


It's quite obvious that I've thought it over a lot, and consider more aspects
of the situation than you do, and probably more than you'll ever be able to.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-09-2005, 08:04 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


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


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

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

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

So saving animal lives is not your main priority,

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


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

it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?

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


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


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


I'm not saying that there's no doubletalk in veganism, but you don't fight a
dishonest movement by trying to outdo their level of duplicity. When vegans
claim to be helping animals, it makes no sense to take that to mean some
specific animals in barns somewhere. It means livestock animals *in
general*, it means that veganism means fewer livestock and that is a more
moral state of affairs.

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


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


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

marked by suffering,
deprivation


Some have horrible lives. Some have decent lives. Some have
good lives. To you it makes no difference what the quality of
their lives are...it is all exploitation to you.


For it to be exploitation it does not depend on whether or not the animals
suffer, it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.

and exploitation.


To me that is an ignorant, shallow way to think.


Exploitation is exploitation, if you treat a slave well, you're still
exploiting him.

All they can do is contribute
to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
deliberately.


They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is
nothing
worthy of criticism.

People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.


Only by consuming selectively,


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


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

simply consuming does not do that.


I never said it does.


It's implied in your position.

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


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


You don't "point out truth" ****wit, you spin a shabby sophistry.

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

1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.


Being born is not a benefit.

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


Only if the animals are born.

3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.


No, it would make it irrelevant.

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


Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.

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


There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted with your
spinny rhetoric.

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


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

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


Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. We
raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.


People
can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
same
time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
vegetable
products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.


I have no reason to be opposed to it ****wit. I am opposed to one thing in
this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of
the
Larder,


And of course I'm opposed to the Logic of the Fantastic Singing Pig.


We were opposing LoL years before Salt's essay came along.

and I will continue to oppose it.

Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:

Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
to
raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy
about
a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.


How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?


1. Your insistence that we can't take the lives of animals into
consideration
when we contemplate human influence on animals.


You can't take a moral credit because they are living creatures.

2. Your insistence that raising animals for food is like raising children
for
sex slaves.


No, your sophism MAKES it like taking credit for raising children for the
sex trade.

3. Your insistence that a speech by an imaginary talking pig written by a
founder of "AR", somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals
benefit from farming.


It completely refutes your position.

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


I don't even understand that one.

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


Those are not the only two options, it's a fase choice fallacy.

6. Things like this:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:17:31 -0800

it *is* pure exploitation. The fact that animals are alive (ie. "get to
experience
life" as you put it) does not offset that fact, in fact it arguably adds
to it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700

Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800

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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800

I am an animal rights believer.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
[...]
At one time he pretended to understand that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
or negative value to the animal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
obviously did.


You are one confused, ****ed-up redneck ****wit.


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


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



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


[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:52:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
which is something you would hate to do.


"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until*
you
agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
issue.


It's not like that for everyone.


That is how it is.

You "ARAs" decide


You know I'm not an ARA, stop embarrassing yourself.

in advance that
you believe the animals morally should not be born regardless of the
quality that their lives would have.


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

I believe the quality of their lives
should be taken into consideration.


So do I, *if* they are going to be raised. This idea of yours that they
ought to be born so that we can apply AW principles to them is at the core
of your position and it is moronic.




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 11:58 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017