Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The "Logic" of the Vegan (was: "Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:37:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> >>> I just removed your obsessive concern with your imaginary browny >>> points because I'm sick as hell of you crying about them all the time. >> >>Liar, you removed it because you're a dishonest loser. The brownie points >>you're referring to are the ones implicit in The Logic of the Larder. > > You're only worried about the ones you're afraid of losing for The > Logic > of the Vegan. Does not follow, I don't get any for that, not being a vegan. >>>>you dishonest piece of shit? >>> >>> Oh okay you baby, you can have one browny point, not that you >>> earned it, but just "take" it or whatever you do with it and from now >>> on shut the **** up about it. >> >>I don't claim ANY brownie points, > > You are terrified that people might consider some option(s) to be > ethically equivalent or superior to "ar" elimination, which would take > brownie points away from The Logic of the Vegan. Wrong, I consider The Logic of the Vegan to be ill-conceived and irrational. I also consider The Logic of the Larder a gross error in judgment and an utter failure as an argument against veganism. >>you do. I KNOW that it is inadmissable >>morally to "consider what the animals get out of it" > > No, we sure don't know anything as stupid or inconsiderate as that. > It's an aspect of the situation that MUST be considered if we're > considering whether or not it's cruel to animals to raise them for food. You're equivocating again. Only if we choose to breed and raise them do we need to consider their welfare. Considering that they get (i.e. we give them) something by *being born* is illegitimate. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The "Logic" of the Vegan (was: "Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
"Autymn D. C." > wrote > sequitur Fine |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
On 1/4/2006 11:27 PM, SlipperySlope wrote:
> homo shitbag HIV+ Ron Hamilton the punk-ass felcher wailed: >> Dutch wrote: >> >>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, ****hair - lied: >>> >>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Slippery Slope wrote: >>> >>>>> Try answering them now, ****wit: WHY are you so >>>>> obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to >>>>> experience life"? >>>> >>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as >>>> much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the >>>> lives of wildlife. >>> >>> Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this >>> "consideration" of yours? >>> >>> >>>>> Why do you think it is "better" for >>>>> the individual livestock animals to exist rather than >>>>> never exist? >>>> >>>> Some of them have lives of positive value and some >>>> do not >>> >>> That's not an answer ****wit. You have no answer. >> >> >> >> You are an > > **** off, Ronnie, you punk-ass felcher. > > No animals "benefit" from "getting to experience life". The only thing > from which you'd benefit is a sock in the jaw. **** off, punk. Do it, punk: **** off, eat shit and die. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fun With The Goober :¬) | Vegan | |||
The Goober | Vegan | |||
GOOBER WORLD TIME | Vegan | |||
hey de sade, check out your hero the Goober... | Vegan | |||
What's Got Goober All Wound Up? | Vegan |