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
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

Louis Boyd wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.

>>
>>
>>
>> No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.

>
>
> Humans don't either.


Exactly right.

> They have to make something of their lives for
> their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.


Exactly right again.

But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison,
believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by
coming into existence. That is, he believes that
"getting to experience life", versus never living at
all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals
(and, presumably, others.)

It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A
"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the
entity that receives the benefit. But coming into
existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it
doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that
new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

Davey Cockfight wrote:
>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
>>>hens have decent lives.

>>
>>You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had
>>decent lives.

>
> How could we do that?


*You* could start by no longer raising (abusing) chickens and dogs for
fighting.

<...>
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

usual suspect wrote:

> Davey Cockfight wrote:
>
>>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage
>>>> free
>>>> hens have decent lives.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had
>>> decent lives.

>>
>>
>> How could we do that?

>
>
> *You* could start by no longer raising (abusing) chickens and dogs for
> fighting.


But...but...then those chickens and dogs will NOT get
to experience life! Oh, the horror!
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

Leif Erikson wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Davey Cockfight wrote:
>>
>>>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and
>>>>> cage free
>>>>> hens have decent lives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had
>>>> decent lives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How could we do that?

>>
>>
>>
>> *You* could start by no longer raising (abusing) chickens and dogs for
>> fighting.

>
>
> But...but...then those chickens and dogs will NOT get to experience
> life! Oh, the horror!


No problem -- a 46 year-old *** hillbilly who moves from his mom's house
onto a houseboat isn't exactly experiencing life, either.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:53:30 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>><snip repetition>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything,
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining
>>>>>>>>egg
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the
>>>>>>animal
>>>>>>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>consumed.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies
>>>>> to
>>>>> be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.
>>>>
>>>>What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it
>>>>indicates
>>>>why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation. The living
>>>>animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat
>>>>the
>>>>animals.
>>>
>>> When considering whether or not it's cruel *to the animals* to raise
>>> them
>>> for food, a person must take their lives into consideration. "ARAs" do
>>> NOT
>>> want us to take the animals' lives into consideration, because some of
>>> them
>>> are of positive value.

>>
>>That should mean the same as their treatment is not cruel, not that they
>>experience life as opposed to "no life". That idea has no place in the
>>calculation.

>
> That's ALL there is to it, so that is EXACTLY what needs to be
> considered
> if you want to stick with reality. Let's test that: if you don't want to
> consider
> the fact that it's the life they experience as opposed to "no life", what
> fantasy
> do you want to consider in place of "no life", and why????


There is no such thing as "no life". There is "no food" which causes an
animal to starve, there is "no space", or "no stimulation", which causes
animal suffering, but "no life" harms no animal. Your argument is smoke and
mirrors.

>>> Since providing food animals with lives of positive
>>> value could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to
>>> eliminating
>>> them,
>>> "ARAs" are very much opposed to it being considered.

>>
>>You are WRONG. As a matter of fact, ARAs consider it very important to
>>consider the humane treatment of animals. They are among the most vocal
>>campaigners for livestock welfare.

>
> They exploit AW i$$ue$ for $ome rea$on...and I believe even you have
> a clue what that rea$on might be.


That's bullshit, the vast majority of ARAs don't make a nickel from their
support of animal welfare causes.

>>They may not consider it as good as
>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>lives, that is for sure.

>
> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be OPPOSED
> to the elimination objective, no matter how much YOU/"ARAs" hate it, and
> in part because you do.


Why should they? Elimination of artificial livestock species isn't a moral
issue for anyone, particularly not for welfare advocates. That's just more
of you blowing smoke.

>>>>>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>>>>>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any
>>>>>>animal.
>>>>>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.
>>>>
>>>>And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
>>>>effort to ensure that they are.
>>>
>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage
>>> free
>>> hens have decent lives. Other than vegetable products, most of what
>>> I eat comes from those groups. I don't know what to think about pork
>>> yet, but I eat very little of it.

>>
>>Then you are not contributing to decent lives for pigs,

>
> I feel sure that when they are suckling pigs their lives are of
> positive
> value. After that I don't know what to think about it, since I don't know
> just how they are raised. One thing I am certain about though is that
> life has positive value for some, and negative for others.


You know jack-shit. You blow smoke out you're arse.

>>how terrible.

>
> As I've said many times and incredibly no one has had what little
> brain it requires to understand: it's not when animals don't live that
> matters, it's when they do. Since obviously none of you can understand
> how that could be, considering details about it must be out of the
> question.


Then what's the problem with livestock species being eliminated if it
doesn't matter when they don't live? You're chasing you're own tail again.

>>>>>You can not
>>>>> contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.
>>>>
>>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific
>>>>animals.
>>>
>>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
>>> future cage free laying hens--to support them--"them" does not refer to
>>> *any* other livestock, much less to *all* OTHER livestock.

>>
>>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment
>>>>of
>>>>animals in general.
>>>
>>> Of FUTURE animals. No one contributes to "better" lives for
>>> animals....
>>> battery hens are not going to all of a sudden be moved to cage free
>>> houses
>>> because any number of people begin to buy cage free eggs. They will
>>> finish out their lives in the cages, and if a new cage free system is
>>> established
>>> where the battery method was being used, it will be with new different
>>> hens
>>> whose lives will not be improved...as I've been saying: it will be that
>>> life or
>>> nothing, so that's how people should think about it.

>>
>>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens.

>
> I would vote for no more batter hens. I would make that illegal before
> I would cock fighting. I'm certain that seems insane to you, and also
> certain that your feelings are due to your own ignorance.


Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. You are
using your own judgment of what you consider right and wrong and deciding
that it is better that battery hens never get to experience life. Yet when
ARAs use the exact same reasoning you claim that they are wrong for
preventing animals from experiencing life. It's pure hypocrisy.

>>You have an
>>elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to
>>experience life.

>
> That's because I believe a significant percentage of them have
> terrible lives. If I didn't, why would I be opposed to them.


And ARAs believe that ALL livestock have terrible lives, therefore what they
do is consistent with that belief, just as your is.

>>How inconsiderate of you.

>
> Of course I view your beliefs as insane AND ignorant.


Any mad fool would say as much.




  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


"usual suspect" > wrote

>> But...but...then those chickens and dogs will NOT get to experience life!
>> Oh, the horror!

>
> No problem -- a 46 year-old *** hillbilly who moves from his mom's house
> onto a houseboat isn't exactly experiencing life, either.


pppppppppppphhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!! !!!!


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:00:28 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens.

>>
>> I would vote for no more batter hens. I would make that illegal before
>> I would cock fighting. I'm certain that seems insane to you, and also
>> certain that your feelings are due to your own ignorance.

>
>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. You are
>using your own judgment of what you consider right and wrong and deciding
>that it is better that battery hens never get to experience life.


Why don't you just explain why I should feel differently?

>Yet when
>ARAs use the exact same reasoning you claim that they are wrong for
>preventing animals from experiencing life. It's pure hypocrisy.
>
>>>You have an
>>>elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to
>>>experience life.

>>
>> That's because I believe a significant percentage of them have
>> terrible lives. If I didn't, why would I be opposed to them.

>
>And ARAs believe that ALL livestock have terrible lives,


So do you. Why should anyone believe YOU/"ARAs"?

>therefore what they
>do is consistent with that belief,


So far I certainly believe that YOU/"THEY" are INCREDIBLY ignorant
for believing that life does not have positive value for any farm animals.

>just as your is.
>
>>>How inconsiderate of you.

>>
>> Of course I view your beliefs as insane AND ignorant.

>
>Any mad fool would say as much.


We agree that YOU/"ARAs" have done so, and probaby will continue
to do so. As you mentioned, think how embarrassing it would be for anyone
to admit they'd been wrong all these years...in your case: for YOU/"ARAs"
to admit that you've been wrong, and that the method of husbandry can
provide lives of positive value for farm animals.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:51:55 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2005 12:22:27 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. explained to the Goober:

>>
>>
>>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
>>>>hens have decent lives.
>>>
>>>You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had
>>>decent lives.

>>
>>
>> How could we do that?

>
>That's your problem.


Meaning that you have no idea.

>>>>>>You can not
>>>>>>contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
>>>>future cage free laying hens
>>>
>>>You aren't.

>>
>>
>> I am.

>
>You aren't. You're eating eggs.
>
>
>>>You are buying the eggs because you want to eat them.

>>
>>
>> I don't buy cage free eggs because I particularly want to eat cage
>> free eggs

>
>Then you shouldn't buy them. Why would you buy and eat
>something you don't particularly want to eat?


Because I DO particularly want to contribute to decent lives for
laying hens, and don't mind eating those particular eggs in order
to do so. YOU/"ARAs" could never understand, but that's how it
is Goo.

>You're
>not making any sense (not that you ever did.)


It's no surprise that YOU/"ARAs" have no clue why a person
would want to contribute to decent lives for any domestic animals.

>>>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>>>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of
>>>>>animals in general.
>>>>
>>>> Of FUTURE animals.
>>>
>>>IF they exist.

>>
>>
>> LOL.

>
>For some reason, that big "IF" seems to tie you up in
>knots.


I consider you a fool for trying to make a big deal out of it,
as if it somehow reinforces the elimination objective even
though it damn sure does NOT!
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote::

>dh@. pointed out:


>> They exploit AW

>
>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>the animals exist. Period.


If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why
would "ARAs" care about it?

>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>lives, that is for sure.

>>
>>
>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be OPPOSED
>> to the elimination objective

>
>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>*conditional* on the animals existing at all


Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us
to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would?

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:


>> You may truly be too stupid to understand

>
>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>"no life".


In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
that or no life. It's funny and even more it's pathetic that
YOU/"ARAs" can't understand that fact. Or maybe you
can understand it also, but you just don't want everyone
else to understand it too?

IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote:

>Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.

>>
>>
>> No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.

>
>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for
>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.


Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please
explain how your limitation could prevent life from being a benefit
for animals raised for food.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>Louis Boyd wrote:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.

>>
>>
>> Humans don't either.

>
>Exactly right.
>
>> They have to make something of their lives for
>> their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.

>
>Exactly right again.
>
>But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison,
>believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by
>coming into existence. That is, he believes that
>"getting to experience life", versus never living at
>all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals
>(and, presumably, others.)


That's a lie Goo. I'm aware that sometimes it is and
sometimes it isn't, depending on quality of life. YOU/"ARAs"
dishonestly, stupidly, ignorantly(?) insist that it NEVER is,
regardless of quality of life.

>It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A
>"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the
>entity that receives the benefit. But coming into
>existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it
>doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that
>new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved.


That shallow "argument" doesn't work for you guys,
since whether or not entities benefit from life doesn't
have anything to do with things that happened before
they come into existence.
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:00:28 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>>>>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens.
>>>
>>> I would vote for no more batter hens. I would make that illegal
>>> before
>>> I would cock fighting. I'm certain that seems insane to you, and also
>>> certain that your feelings are due to your own ignorance.

>>
>>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. You are
>>using your own judgment of what you consider right and wrong and deciding
>>that it is better that battery hens never get to experience life.

>
> Why don't you just explain why I should feel differently?


Because you attack vegans for using the same reasoning. You're saying it's
OK to "eliminate" a group of animals (so they never experience life) if you
believe that their lives are not worth living. It's exactly what they do.
The form of reasoning they use is the same as yours, the only difference is
that they apply it to more animals than you do. Your actual argument against
them is that you agree with their reasoning but you disagree about which
animals should be eliminated.

>>Yet when
>>ARAs use the exact same reasoning you claim that they are wrong for
>>preventing animals from experiencing life. It's pure hypocrisy.
>>
>>>>You have an
>>>>elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to
>>>>experience life.
>>>
>>> That's because I believe a significant percentage of them have
>>> terrible lives. If I didn't, why would I be opposed to them.

>>
>>And ARAs believe that ALL livestock have terrible lives,

>
> So do you.


No I don't. My believe is closer to yours,

> Why should anyone believe YOU/"ARAs"?


It's not a case of belief, it's opinion.

>>therefore what they
>>do is consistent with that belief,

>
> So far I certainly believe that YOU/"THEY" are INCREDIBLY ignorant
> for believing that life does not have positive value for any farm animals.


Why? It's just a difference of degree beween, you, me, and them.

[..]


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:51:55 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 16 Nov 2005 12:22:27 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. explained to the Goober:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
>>>>>hens have decent lives.
>>>>
>>>>You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had
>>>>decent lives.
>>>
>>>
>>> How could we do that?

>>
>>That's your problem.

>
>
> Meaning that


Meaning that I recognize you question wasn't serious;
just your usual attempt at time-wasting.


>>>>>>>You can not
>>>>>>>contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
>>>>>future cage free laying hens
>>>>
>>>>You aren't.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am.

>>
>>You aren't. You're eating eggs.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You are buying the eggs because you want to eat them.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't buy cage free eggs because I particularly want to eat cage
>>>free eggs

>>
>>Then you shouldn't buy them. Why would you buy and eat
>>something you don't particularly want to eat?

>
>
> Because I DO particularly want to contribute to decent lives


No. You want to cause animals to live. That's all.


>
>>You're
>>not making any sense (not that you ever did.)

>
>
> It's no surprise that YOU/"ARAs"


I'm not an "ara".


>>>>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>>>>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of
>>>>>>animals in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of FUTURE animals.
>>>>
>>>>IF they exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL.

>>
>>For some reason, that big "IF" seems to tie you up in
>>knots.

>
>
> I consider you a fool


That big "IF" ties you up in knots. That much is clear.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:

>
>
>>> They exploit AW

>>
>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>>the animals exist. Period.

>
>
> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value


I don't insist that.


>>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>>lives, that is for sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be OPPOSED
>>>to the elimination objective

>>
>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all



  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:

>
>
>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand

>>
>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>"no life".

>
>
> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
> that or no life.


The choice is between "life" or "no life". That's all.


> IF! you don't believe me


You're a pathological liar. No one believes you.
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote:
>
>
>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.

>>
>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for
>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.

>
>
> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please
> explain how your limitation


He doesn't have a "limitation". A refusal to follow
you down your path to ****witted insanity is not a
"limitation".
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. lied:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>Louis Boyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.
>>>
>>>
>>>Humans don't either.

>>
>>Exactly right.
>>
>>
>>>They have to make something of their lives for
>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.

>>
>>Exactly right again.
>>
>>But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison,
>>believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by
>>coming into existence. That is, he believes that
>>"getting to experience life", versus never living at
>>all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals
>>(and, presumably, others.)

>
>
> That's a lie.


It isn't a lie:

"Life itself is the benefit which makes all other
benefits possible." - ****wit David Harrison

You believe that life _per se_ is a benefit. Stop lying.


> I'm aware


Stop lying. You think life _per se_ is *always* a benefit.


>
>>It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A
>>"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the
>>entity that receives the benefit. But coming into
>>existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it
>>doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that
>>new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved.

>
>
> That shallow "argument"


It's persuasive and conclusive. YOU sure as hell can't
refute it.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value, but that's not the issue


<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote::
>
>>dh@. pointed out:

>
>>> They exploit AW

>>
>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>>the animals exist. Period.

>
> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why
> would "ARAs" care about it?
>
>>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>>lives, that is for sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be
>>> OPPOSED
>>> to the elimination objective

>>
>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all

>
> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us
> to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would?


If they had their way, NONE, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by
wanting to deny life to future livestock. Get past that idea, it's bullshit,
nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life
to mice in your bedroom by not raising them. The implications of AR/veganism
are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and
me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe
we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully
so, not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get
a friggin grip.


  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:40:38 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. pointed out:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Goo lied:


>>>But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison,
>>>believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by
>>>coming into existence. That is, he believes that
>>>"getting to experience life", versus never living at
>>>all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals
>>>(and, presumably, others.)

>>
>>
>> That's a lie.

>
>It isn't a lie:
>
> "Life itself is the benefit which makes all other
> benefits possible." - ****wit David Harrison
>
>You believe that life _per se_ is a benefit. Stop lying.
>
>
>> I'm aware

>
>Stop lying. You think life _per se_ is *always* a benefit.


It's just more details you can't understand. This particular
detail you can't understand is the difference between life
itself, or life _per se_, and the individual lives of animals.
Until you can learn to understand the difference, and most
likely you never will, you can't even think about details as
to when "life is a benefit" and when it's not. LOL...how
could you, if you can't understand how it EVER could be
for any human or other animal?

>>>It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A
>>>"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the
>>>entity that receives the benefit. But coming into
>>>existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it
>>>doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that
>>>new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved.

>>
>>
>> That shallow "argument"

>
>It's persuasive


Not the way you intend it.

>and conclusive.


The conclusion is that it has absolutely nothing
to do with which animals' lives are of positive value
and which are not, much MUCH less does it prevent
any of them from being positive while making ALL of
them negative, as YOU/"ARAs" would like everyone
to believe they are.

>YOU sure as hell can't
>refute it.


"A "benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the
entity that receives the benefit. But coming into existence
itself cannot be a benefit, because it doesn't improve the
welfare of the new entity:"

Zygotes are new entities, and life is the benefit which
allows them to grow into conscious beings. Unless the
experiences of being conscious beings are not so bad
that they give life a negative value, I believe it is of
positive value in comparison to never existing at all.
So. In order to make your theory anything more than
nonesense, *you* need to explain how nonexistence
--even nonexistence of imaginary nonexistent "entities"!--
could prevent life from being of positive value to everything
that does live. You haven't done it, and I have absolute
faith that you are unable to even try. It may be amusing
if you do, but I don't expect to see any attempt.

"that new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved."

You're trying to make an overall statement about
something that you can't even think about it detail.
When does an egg become "alive"? When does a
sperm? What are some differences between the kind
of life that eggs have, sperm have, and conscious
animals have? Those are all issues which you can't
even contemplate, but YOU would have to EXPLAIN
IN DETAIL before your proclamation could even be
considered. So far it can't be.


  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:53 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.
>>>
>>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for
>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.

>>
>>
>> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please
>> explain how your limitation

>
>He doesn't have a "limitation".


LOL! Yes he does, you poor fool. LOL!!! Oh Goo...you poor, poor
Goober... He insists that only the lives of those who "make something
of" them are "of benefit to themselves or other". That means that all
beings who don't "make something of their lives" can not benefit from
living. You can't understand it much less agree with it though, and you
need to stop trying to think about it or you might hurt yourself.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:03 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:

>>
>>
>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>
>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>"no life".

>>
>>
>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>> that or no life.

>
>The choice is between "life" or "no life". That's all.
>
>
>> IF! you don't believe me

>
>You're a pathological liar.


The truth is MY friend, not YOURS/"ARAs'".

>No one believes you.


That's because the facts I point out conflict with what
YOU/"THEY" WANT TO believe, not because they aren't
true. And that is why YOU lie...because the truth conflicts
what YOU want other people to believe. And that is because
it suggests that some alternative(s) could be ethically
equivalent or superior to elimination.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:

>>
>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>
>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>"no life".

>>
>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>> that or no life.

>
>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have
>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont.
>
>Agree?


Agreed.

>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."

>
>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you
>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not the
>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no modifiers,
>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both.


It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a different
one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible
life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often
more than once...

If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or nothing,
NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or
not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can learn to
understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the
situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it.

>You're mixing
>dichotomies.


You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life
for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves
their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would
have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence
which would help some particular animals. For example I've
explained that people who want to actually DO something could
get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise
them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they
wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they
wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from
the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life....

To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated
the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now--
that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people
were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That
not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past
6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs"
have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value, but that's not the issue

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:23:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote::
>>
>>>dh@. pointed out:

>>
>>>> They exploit AW
>>>
>>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>>>the animals exist. Period.

>>
>> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why
>> would "ARAs" care about it?
>>
>>>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>>>lives, that is for sure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be
>>>> OPPOSED
>>>> to the elimination objective
>>>
>>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all

>>
>> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us
>> to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would?

>
>If they had their way, NONE


Then people who want to see them provided with decent lives should
be OPPOSED to the elimination objective, as I've been saying.

>, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by
>wanting to deny life to future livestock.


It means they have a different objective which conflicts with providing
decent lives.

>Get past that idea, it's bullshit,
>nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life
>to mice in your bedroom by not raising them.


I've explained why they are completely different, and if you don't understand
why then you never will...and it looks like you never will.

>The implications of AR/veganism
>are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and
>me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe
>we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully
>so,


That shit is only about YOU, as I've pointed out. YOUR/MY personal benefits
are a completely different thing than those of the animals, and should be
considered as such. What you want, what you pretend to want, and what you
encourage other people to want all are a completely different subject than
whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for food.

>not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get
>a friggin grip.


The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
food, and much as YOU/"ARAs" have tried to pry me away from the subject,
I have maintained a solid grip on it pretty much the whole time. I've even
suggested that YOU/"ARAs" try to at least get a little tiny feel for it, which you
always resist, so suggesting that you "Get a friggin grip" would almost undoubtedly
be suggesting something that's way beyond what you will ever even attempt.

To let you know how far from your position I am on this here's an example:
When I decide whether or not to kill a bug that's in the house or take it out
and let it die some other way, I consider that. I consider first of course whether
I want to promote life for such a being or not...if not, it's dead. If so I will often
try to take it outside and give it a chance to live for a while, sometimes even
tiny little insects. When I compare the lives of animals raised for food as you
do with imaginary child sex slaves etc, I compare them to the lives of
insects, fish, birds, or whatever that actually does exist. Sometimes I compare
them to my own life, but not to imaginary grotesqueries like you do. So my
questions are more like: Isn't the 6 weeks that broiler chickens get a longer
and richer experience than two or three weeks as a mosquito or some other
lower form of life? So in that respect, can't we feel better about seeing a
plate of fried chicken than we can about seeing many types of insects...?

But after all the fantasising, and comparing different lives and potential lives
etc, it still remains tha: It's the life they get or no life, for everything, every time!
If you can never get a grip on that, you can never have a correct interpretation.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. lied:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:40:38 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:

>
>
>>>>But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison,
>>>>believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by
>>>>coming into existence. That is, he believes that
>>>>"getting to experience life", versus never living at
>>>>all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals
>>>>(and, presumably, others.)
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a lie.

>>
>>It isn't a lie:
>>
>> "Life itself is the benefit which makes all other
>> benefits possible." - ****wit David Harrison
>>
>>You believe that life _per se_ is a benefit. Stop lying.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm aware

>>
>>Stop lying. You think life _per se_ is *always* a benefit.

>
>
> It's just more details you can't understand.


There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot.

Stop lying: you believe that life _per se_ is a
benefit to animals. That belief is wrong and stupid.



>>>>It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A
>>>>"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the
>>>>entity that receives the benefit. But coming into
>>>>existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it
>>>>doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that
>>>>new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved.
>>>
>>>
>>> That shallow "argument"

>>
>>It's persuasive

>
>
> Not the way you intend it.


Yes, the way I intend it. It is persuasive to all who
think about what "benefit" means.



>>and conclusive.

>
>
> The conclusion is that


The conclusion is that you have to deny the obvious.


>>YOU sure as hell can't
>>refute it.

>
>
> "A "benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the
> entity that receives the benefit. But coming into existence
> itself cannot be a benefit, because it doesn't improve the
> welfare of the new entity:"
>
> Zygotes are new entities, and life is the benefit which
> allows them to grow into conscious beings.


No, life is *NOT* a benefit to "zygotes", because:

a) they didn't have a welfare before they existed, and
b) zygotes don't *EVER* have a welfare


> "that new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved."
>
> You're trying to make an overall statement about
> something that you can't even think about it detail.


I can think about it. Unlike you, I *can* think about
it accurately and correctly. Your thoughts on the
matter are worthless, because they are bizarre
fantasies. You imagine that animals and zygotes and
****-knows what else have properties they do not,
CANNOT, have.

You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing and
seeing your crap in usenet.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. lied:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:53 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.
>>>>
>>>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for
>>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please
>>>explain how your limitation

>>
>>He doesn't have a "limitation".

>
>
> LOL! Yes he does


No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a "limitation" that
prevents him from correctly thinking about animals.

YOU have one; actually, several. The first is your
total lack of meaningful education. The second is your
choice to be stupid.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. lied:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:03 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>>
>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>>>The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>>"no life".
>>>
>>>
>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>>>that or no life.

>>
>>The choice is between "life" or "no life". That's all.
>>
>>
>>
>>> IF! you don't believe me

>>
>>You're a pathological liar.

>
>
> The truth is MY friend


No, it definitely is not. You are a bald-faced liar.


>
>>No one believes you.

>
>
> That's because the facts I point


You don't point out facts. You keep blabbering your
bizarre bullshit about coming into existence being a
benefit, when any logically thinking person can see it
isn't.

You have not stated a single meaningful fact in over
six years of wasting time in usenet. You're a fat
Georgia homosexual who moved out of your mommy's house
after age 40 and now live on a leaky houseboat. You're
uneducated and incapable of true learning.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>>
>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>>"no life".
>>>
>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>>>that or no life.

>>
>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have
>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont.
>>
>>Agree?

>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
>>>improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
>>>understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."

>>
>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you
>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not the
>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no modifiers,
>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both.

>
>
> It is the life they get or no life,


Not coming into existence at all is meaningless. You
keep stupidly insisting that people "ought" to
contribute to "decent lives for farm animals" INSTEAD
OF "no life at all", and that's just a stupid thing to
say. You stupidly believe that causing animals to
live, per se, is better than not wanting any farm
animals to live, and you CANNOT SAY WHY.

Your bullshit about "decent" lives is a laughable
smokescreen; a stupid attempt at a dodge. No matter
how thinly you try to slice your shit, it's still shit.
You CANNOT SAY WHY it is "better" to cause animals to
live than not to do so; you just keep STUPIDLY
insisting that it is.


>>You're mixing
>>dichotomies.

>
>
> You're still mixed up


He isn't mixed up at all.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se is not a benefit

dh@. lied:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:23:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>>> They exploit AW
>>>>
>>>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>>>>the animals exist. Period.
>>>
>>> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why
>>>would "ARAs" care about it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>>>>lives, that is for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be
>>>>>OPPOSED
>>>>>to the elimination objective
>>>>
>>>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>>>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>>>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all
>>>
>>> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us
>>>to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would?

>>
>>If they had their way, NONE

>
>
> Then people who want to see them provided with decent lives


You mean, people who want to see them exist, period...

You can't get away with your false choice; you'll be
called on it every time.


>>, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by
>>wanting to deny life to future livestock.

>
>
> It means they have a different objective which conflicts with providing
> decent lives.


"Providing decent lives" ONLY matters if they're going
to live. Providing life at all is not providing them a
benefit.


>>Get past that idea, it's bullshit,
>>nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life
>>to mice in your bedroom by not raising them.

>
>
> I've explained why they are completely different


Your "explanation" was self-serving bullshit.


>>The implications of AR/veganism
>>are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and
>>me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe
>>we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully
>>so,

>
>
> That shit is only about YOU, as I've pointed out. YOUR/MY personal benefits
> are a completely different thing than those of the animals,


The animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
"decent" lives for them ONLY is a consideration IF
they exist.


>>not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get
>>a friggin grip.

>
>
> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
> food,


And "vegans" believe it is, and YOU don't even make an
attempt to persuade them that they're wrong.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>>
>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>>"no life".
>>>
>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>>> that or no life.

>>
>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have
>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont.
>>
>>Agree?

>
> Agreed.


That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic
relevant issue before us.

>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
>>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
>>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."

>>
>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you
>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not
>>the
>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no
>>modifiers,
>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both.

>
> It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a
> different
> one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible
> life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often
> more than once...


Too convoluted...

The options are;
1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions,
2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or
3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal
products.

The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and 3)
are both moral. That's ALL there is to it.

What is your disagreement with that?

> If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or
> nothing,
> NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or
> not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can learn
> to
> understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the
> situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it.
>
>>You're mixing
>>dichotomies.

>
> You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life
> for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves
> their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would
> have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence
> which would help some particular animals. For example I've
> explained that people who want to actually DO something could
> get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise
> them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they
> wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they
> wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from
> the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life....
>
> To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated
> the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now--
> that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people
> were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That
> not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past
> 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs"
> have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT.


Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that.




  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se is not a benefit

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:

>dh@. pointed out:


>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
>> food,

>
>And "vegans" believe it is


Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:35:14 GMT, Goo lied:

>There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot.


I understand the difference between life itself and the individual
life experiences animals have. You can not. I understand that life
has a positive value for some animals. You can not.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:36:44 GMT, Goober dishonestly believed:

>dh@. lied:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:53 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for
>>>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please
>>>>explain how your limitation
>>>
>>>He doesn't have a "limitation".

>>
>>
>> LOL! Yes he does

>
>No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a "limitation" that
>prevents him from correctly thinking about animals.


You are completely lost on this one, you poor stupid Goober.
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>>>
>>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>>>"no life".
>>>>
>>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>>>> that or no life.
>>>
>>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have
>>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont.
>>>
>>>Agree?

>>
>> Agreed.

>
>That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic
>relevant issue before us.
>
>>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
>>>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
>>>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."
>>>
>>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you
>>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not
>>>the
>>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no
>>>modifiers,
>>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both.

>>
>> It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a
>> different
>> one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible
>> life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often
>> more than once...

>
>Too convoluted...


What I pointed out is true, but the truth is obviously more complicated
than you are able to understand, much less think about in any detail.

>The options are;
>1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions,
>2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or
>3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal
>products.
>
>The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and 3)
>are both moral. That's ALL there is to it.
>
>What is your disagreement with that?


YOU/"ARAs" are the ones who have been disagreeing with the
suggestion that providing decent lives for farm animals could be
ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination.

>> If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or
>> nothing,
>> NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or
>> not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can learn
>> to
>> understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the
>> situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it.
>>
>>>You're mixing
>>>dichotomies.

>>
>> You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life
>> for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves
>> their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would
>> have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence
>> which would help some particular animals. For example I've
>> explained that people who want to actually DO something could
>> get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise
>> them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they
>> wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they
>> wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from
>> the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life....
>>
>> To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated
>> the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now--
>> that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people
>> were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That
>> not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past
>> 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs"
>> have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT.

>
>Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that.


Of course you can't, because it involves thinking about the
ANIMALS and not simply thinking about YOU/"ARAs". The
idea of how people could actually contribute to decent lives
for farm animals never even enters YOUR/"ARAs'" minds,
and when someone points out one obvious way it could be
done, YOU/"ARAs" can't make any sense out of any of it.
I've been telling you this for quite a while now, here we have
a perfect example of it, and still you can't understand.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:35:14 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot.

>
> I understand the difference between life itself and


You understand nothing meaningful regarding animal lives at all.



  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:36:44 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:53 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>dh@. lied:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for
> >>>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please
> >>>>explain how your limitation
> >>>
> >>>He doesn't have a "limitation".
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL! Yes he does

> >
> >No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a "limitation" that
> >prevents him from correctly thinking about animals.

>
> You are completely


He doesn't have a "limitation" that prevents him from correctly
thinking about animals. YOU have one.

  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se is not a benefit

dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >dh@. pointed out:

>
> >> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
> >> food,

> >
> >And "vegans" believe it is

>
> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?


You need to try to persuade them that their belief - that raising
animals to eat them is cruel _per se_ - is erroneous. So far, in over
six years, you have never tried. Your bullshit about life being a
"benefit" does not address their beliefs, and everyone thinks you're
nuts for clinging to it as it it is an insightful theory. It isn't.

  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> lied:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>><dh@.> lied:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>dh@. lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
> >>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
> >>>>>"no life".
> >>>>
> >>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
> >>>> that or no life.
> >>>
> >>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have
> >>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont.
> >>>
> >>>Agree?
> >>
> >> Agreed.

> >
> >That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic
> >relevant issue before us.
> >
> >>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
> >>>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
> >>>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."
> >>>
> >>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you
> >>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not
> >>>the
> >>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no
> >>>modifiers,
> >>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both.
> >>
> >> It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a
> >> different
> >> one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible
> >> life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often
> >> more than once...

> >
> >Too convoluted...

>
> What I pointed out is true,


It isn't.


> >The options are;
> >1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions,
> >2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or
> >3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal
> >products.
> >
> >The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and 3)
> >are both moral. That's ALL there is to it.
> >
> >What is your disagreement with that?

>
> YOU/"ARAs" are the ones who have been disagreeing with the
> suggestion that providing decent lives for farm animals could be
> ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination.


You have NEVER ATTEMPTED to explain why it is, other than to let drop
the "decent lives" crapola and switch to saying that life is a
"benefit".

"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
superior to "no life at all."


> >> If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or
> >> nothing,
> >> NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or
> >> not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can learn
> >> to
> >> understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the
> >> situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it.
> >>
> >>>You're mixing
> >>>dichotomies.
> >>
> >> You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life
> >> for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves
> >> their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would
> >> have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence
> >> which would help some particular animals. For example I've
> >> explained that people who want to actually DO something could
> >> get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise
> >> them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they
> >> wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they
> >> wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from
> >> the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life....
> >>
> >> To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated
> >> the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now--
> >> that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people
> >> were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That
> >> not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past
> >> 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs"
> >> have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT.

> >
> >Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that.

>
> Of course you can't, because


....because it is convoluted bullshit.

  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>>>>"no life".
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>>>>> that or no life.
>>>>
>>>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have
>>>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont.
>>>>
>>>>Agree?
>>>
>>> Agreed.

>>
>>That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic
>>relevant issue before us.


There's nothing more of any significance to discuss...

>>>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
>>>>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
>>>>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."
>>>>
>>>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you
>>>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not
>>>>the
>>>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no
>>>>modifiers,
>>>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both.
>>>
>>> It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a
>>> different
>>> one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible
>>> life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often
>>> more than once...

>>
>>Too convoluted...

>
> What I pointed out is true, but the truth is obviously more complicated
> than you are able to understand, much less think about in any detail.


OK, so what am I supposed to do with all that complicated information?
Sometimes they have good lives, sometimes bad, sometimes both at different
times... sometimes it's hard to know which... let's say all that's true,
what do I do about it?

Why don't we just keep it simple for the sake of discussion just say that we
are able to tell which animals have decent lives and which do not?

>>The options are;
>>1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions,
>>2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or
>>3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal
>>products.
>>
>>The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and
>>3)
>>are both moral. That's ALL there is to it.
>>
>>What is your disagreement with that?

>
> YOU/"ARAs" are the ones who have been disagreeing with the
> suggestion that providing decent lives for farm animals could be
> ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination.


Would you please answer the specific question I asked? I thought we agreed
on this already, do you agree that 1) and 3) above are moral and 2) is not?
This should be very straightforward. Do you agree or not that it sums up the
issue? If not, what's missing or wrong with it?

>>> If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or
>>> nothing,
>>> NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or
>>> not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can
>>> learn
>>> to
>>> understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the
>>> situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it.
>>>
>>>>You're mixing
>>>>dichotomies.
>>>
>>> You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life
>>> for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves
>>> their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would
>>> have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence
>>> which would help some particular animals. For example I've
>>> explained that people who want to actually DO something could
>>> get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise
>>> them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they
>>> wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they
>>> wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from
>>> the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life....
>>>
>>> To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated
>>> the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now--
>>> that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people
>>> were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That
>>> not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past
>>> 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs"
>>> have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT.

>>
>>Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that.

>
> Of course you can't, because it involves thinking about the
> ANIMALS and not simply thinking about YOU/"ARAs".


I have already stipulated in my 1), 2), 3) question that the treatment of
the animal is PARAMOUNT in deciding if it's moral or not. I have also stated
categorically that I believe that both 1) and 3) are moral, completely
contrary to what ARAs believe, so I can't understand how you can refer to me
as "YOU/ARAs", as if we have the same view, we don't.

The
> idea of how people could actually contribute to decent lives
> for farm animals never even enters YOUR/"ARAs'" minds,
> and when someone points out one obvious way it could be
> done, YOU/"ARAs" can't make any sense out of any of it.
> I've been telling you this for quite a while now, here we have
> a perfect example of it, and still you can't understand.


If you would please, just answer the question and stop muddying the waters.


  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

<dh@.> wrote

>>There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot.

>
> I understand the difference between life itself and the individual
> life experiences animals have.


Yet you constantly equivocate between "life itself" and "a decent life" when
you say that "no life" is the opposite of "a decent life" when it is
actually the opposite of "life itself". So either you do understand the
difference as you say and you're being deliberately dishonest, or you don't
understand the difference.

> I understand that life
> has a positive value for some animals.


That is a vague, subjective opinion and you provide no reason why anyone
should consider it. No matter how you dress a pig it's still a pig, and your
position is still The Logic of the Larder no matter how you try to disguise
it.


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
Life can have positive value dh@. Vegan 10 16-11-2005 09:07 PM
Life can have positive value [email protected] Vegan 9 09-11-2005 10:11 PM
Life can have positive value [email protected] Vegan 0 27-10-2005 11:22 PM
Article: Soy: Positive: Men do not need to be scared of soy [email protected] Vegan 0 30-12-2004 10:37 PM
Article: Soy: Positive: Men do not need to be scared of soy William Hershman Vegan 15 30-12-2004 10:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"