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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.pets.ferrets
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Affects on Animal evolution caused by Humans

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Goo wrote:

>is it important to you to try to promote
>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>those products coming from animals raised and
>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>
>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.


No. It's the life they get or no life at all Goo, not the
life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
decide to buy.
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Affects on Animal evolution caused by Humans

dh@. lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>is it important to you to try to promote
>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>>those products coming from animals raised and
>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>>
>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.

>
>
> No.


Yes. It's a false choice, ****wit, because you're
collapsing two choices into one, stupidly thinking no
one would notice. I noticed. Your choice is a false
choice.


> It's the life they get or no life at all


First you decide if you're going to consume animal
products ("provide life for animals") at all. IF and
ONLY if you decide you're going to consume animal
products, THEN you're faced with deciding how much you
care about their quality of life ("decent lives" or
something less humane).

Answer the question, ****wit: WHY do you care that
livestock exist, other than to provide you with
products? The animals do not "benefit" by coming into
existence; YOU benefit by their existence.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.pets.ferrets
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Affects on Animal evolution caused by Humans


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Goo wrote:
>
>>is it important to you to try to promote
>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>>those products coming from animals raised and
>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>>
>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.

>
> No. It's the life they get or no life at all Goo, not the
> life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
> decide to buy.


You're equivocating between livestock *in general*, consumer impact *in
general* and the effect on specific animals. It's more clear now than it
ever was that your logic is bad, and it always has been very clear.


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.pets.ferrets
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Affects on Animal evolution caused by Humans

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Goo wrote:
>>
>>>is it important to you to try to promote
>>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>>>those products coming from animals raised and
>>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>>>
>>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.

>>
>> No. It's the life they get or no life at all Goo, not the
>> life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
>> decide to buy.

>
>You're equivocating between livestock *in general*, consumer impact *in
>general* and the effect on specific animals. It's more clear now than it
>ever was that your logic is bad, and it always has been very clear.


You're just too stupid to understand that it's the life they get or no life
--NOT the life they get or a better life--for all livestock in general and for
each specific animal. It's amazing that anyone is too stupid to be able
to understand that:

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life."

but you are obviously too stupid to understand it, since you hilariously
think pointing the fact out is somehow bad logic.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.pets.ferrets
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Affects on Animal evolution caused by Humans


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>is it important to you to try to promote
>>>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>>>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>>>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>>>>those products coming from animals raised and
>>>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>>>>
>>>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.
>>>
>>> No. It's the life they get or no life at all Goo, not the
>>> life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
>>> decide to buy.

>>
>>You're equivocating between livestock *in general*, consumer impact *in
>>general* and the effect on specific animals. It's more clear now than it
>>ever was that your logic is bad, and it always has been very clear.

>
> You're just too stupid <snip>


That sums it up.





  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.pets.ferrets
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Affects on Animal evolution caused by Humans

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> >>>is it important to you to try to promote
> >>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
> >>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
> >>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
> >>>those products coming from animals raised and
> >>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
> >>>
> >>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.
> >>
> >> No. It's the life they get or no life at all, not the
> >> life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
> >> decide to buy.

> >
> >You're equivocating between livestock *in general*, consumer impact *in
> >general* and the effect on specific animals. It's more clear now than it
> >ever was that your logic is bad, and it always has been very clear.

>
> You're just too stupid to understand that it's the life they get or no life


Repeating your nonsense won't make it become sensible, ****wit.

Your choice is a false choice, ****wit, and now you're compounding your
stupid ****wittery by equivocating between individual animals and
specific ones. No one is fooled.

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
Drive against animal slaughter by animal welfare groups dh@. Vegan 0 18-11-2011 01:27 AM
US Boycott affects sales greybeard Wine 9 16-02-2006 11:03 AM
Humans require animal proteins... CARP Vegan 0 31-07-2005 05:47 AM
the affects of water on vines J.C. Winemaking 0 14-09-2004 04:02 AM
My Evolution Ol' Hippie Barbecue 1 08-02-2004 05:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 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"