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.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
Goo keeps asking me the same questions all the
time. Then when I answer the fool, he HILARIOUSLY snipps the answer because he can't oppose it, then more hilariously/dishonestly/childishly/stupidly=Goobaly claims that I haven't answered him. LOL...is anyone ever stupid enough to be fooled by Goo when he attempts to play such infantile tricks? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> Goo keeps asking me the same questions all the >> time. > >Because you keep failing to answer them, I answer them and you snip the answers Goo. >****WIT. > >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 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, depending on quality of life, so that is how people should think about it, NOT that all of it is evil wrongness as YOU/"ARAs" try to make everyone believe it is: __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: et> You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: et> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >(Hint in answering that second one: >don't say because they "benefit" from existing; they do >not.) YOU/"ARAs" are unaware of how life can have positive value for livestock, and most likely for anything else. >Why do you think livestock exist for *any* >reason except to satisfy human wants? > >Bonus question: why can't you see that your silly game >failed? If you mean why do I believe YOU/"ARAs" attempt to oppose the facts I point out, I don't believe it's because you're too stupid to understand them. And I do know it's because they work against what YOU/"ARAs" are trying to get everyone to believe, and what you are trying to accomplish: __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: .com> Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: . net> There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
<dh@.> wrote > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
Dutch wrote: > <dh@.> wrote > > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo 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 idiot Douche. Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike you. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
homo shitbag HIV+ Ron Hamilton wailed:
> Dutch wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote >> >>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
SlipperySlope wrote: > homo shitbag HIV+ Ron Hamilton wailed: > > Dutch wrote: > > > >><dh@.> wrote > >> > >>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo 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. delivered by a 4 foot tall, 300 lb. dwarf who prances around in Victoria's Secret lingerie and terrorizes women?.........I think not. Now go play with your gerbils Goo. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
SlipperySlope wrote: > homo shitbag HIV+ Ron Hamilton wailed: > > Dutch wrote: > > > >><dh@.> wrote > >> > >>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo 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. Did someone give you an atomic wedgie this morning Goo? You sure have got your knickers in a bunch. Kind of funny actually. ;o) |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:02:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo 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 You prove to be stupid enough to be fooled by Goo all the time. You are the idiot's idiot as you prove once more, so you're right in suggesting that I should have asked: "Is anyone besides Doutche fooled by the Goober?" |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:02:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo 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 > > You prove to be stupid enough to be fooled by Goo > all the time. You are the idiot's idiot as you prove once > more, so you're right in suggesting that I should have > asked: "Is anyone besides Doutche fooled by the Goober?" That's not even your usual lousy answer. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 05:03:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:02:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo 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 >> >> You prove to be stupid enough to be fooled by Goo >> all the time. You are the idiot's idiot as you prove once >> more, so you're right in suggesting that I should have >> asked: "Is anyone besides Doutche fooled by the Goober?" > >That's not even your usual lousy answer. Whether or not you consider it to be a usual lousy answer to some question that's clanging around in your mostly empty skull, it IS an answer to the question I asked regarding whether or not anyone is fooled by the Goober. The question that may be bothering you about why I go on about livestock lives, must always be a question for you. That's because as I've pointed out many times, you can't understand the quote you pasted which draws attention to the fact: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" > Message-ID: > The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ LOL! The answer to your question IS the fact you pasted, you poor fool. If you could understand what you pasted, you could understand why I have an interest in human influence just as you/"aras" try to have. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
****wit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in
Atlanta, GA, lied: > On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 05:03:03 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > >****wit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied: > >> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:02:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>****wit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied: > >>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson 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 > >> > >> You prove to be stupid enough to be fooled by Goo > >> all the time. You are the idiot's idiot as you prove once > >> more, so you're right in suggesting that I should have > >> asked: "Is anyone besides Doutche fooled by the Goober?" > > > >That's not even your usual lousy answer. > > Whether or not you consider it to be a usual lousy answer It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
<dh@.> wrote
> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as > much or more consideration than their deaths Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:03:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote > >> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as >> much or more consideration than their deaths > >Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Message-ID: .net> the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Dieter > Message-ID: . net> ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral consideration. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza > Message-ID: et> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" > Message-ID: > they are a direct result of activities which humans undertake for their own benefit. Since we cause these events to happen as a direct result of feeding ourselves we must bear some responsibility for the deaths. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ LOL!!! Again we have proof that you are fooled even by yourself, and by Goo too in this example, you poor stupid fool. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" > Message-ID: > The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ When not, can you explain why we should disregard the fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths: __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: .net> the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ of billions of animals? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
No clue for Goo...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Goo continues to wonder:
>Why should the continued existence of livestock get >*any* of your "consideration", ****wit, apart from your >wish to consume them? Because you/"aras" suggest an influence: __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700 "vegans" are interested in their influence on animals, ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's an influence, whether you like it or not. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ that as yet I've been given no reason to believe would be superior to providing decent AW instead. >Why are you still evading the question, ****wit: why >is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to >wild animals, continue to exist? You would have to tell me which wild animals you're going on about Goo. Do you have a clue about which of "them" you do? Could you share that clue, Goo? (prediction: the answer is: no clue) (note: Goo's boy "Dutch" had a clue which consists only of potential future wild mice, frogs and groundhogs who are supposedly being kept down by the cattle) |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote: > > >>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. > > > Can you explain Of course. Everything you write is lousy, because you're ignorant and stupid-by-choice. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
<dh@.> wrote > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:03:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote >> >>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as >>> much or more consideration than their deaths >> >>Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? I asked for *your* opinion ****wit, not the opinions of other people. Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? I would have thought that you'd have an answer ready for that one. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote: > >>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. > > Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct: > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: "Dutch" > > Message-ID: > > > The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life > has positive or negative value to the animal. > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living. Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I point out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born? > When not, can you explain why we should disregard the > fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths: > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Goo > Message-ID: .net> > > the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral > consideration, and gets it. > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > of billions of animals? Whatever number. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
No clue for Goo...
<dh@.> wrote > On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Goo continues to wonder: > >>Why should the continued existence of livestock get >>*any* of your "consideration", ****wit, apart from your >>wish to consume them? > > Because you/"aras" suggest an influence: > __________________________________________________ _______ > From: Goo > Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700 > > "vegans" are interested in their influence on animals, > ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would > mean no animals raised for food and other products. > That's an influence, whether you like it or not. > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > that as yet I've been given no reason to believe would be superior > to providing decent AW instead. We're not saying that it is, we're saying that raising livestock is not morally superior as you are attempting to argue. >>Why are you still evading the question, ****wit: why >>is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to >>wild animals, continue to exist? > > You would have to tell me which wild animals you're going > on about Goo. Do you have a clue about which of "them" > you do? Could you share that clue, Goo? We're talking about every wild animal that is killed or displaced by pasture lands and feed crops. There is no doubt that eliminating large ruminants like cattle would result in enough land, food and water resources being freed up to support *at least* as many indivdual animals of wild species, undoubtedly more. So the argument that we ought to consider animals "getting to experience life" actually works against you. If you want animals to "experience life" you would probably do better as a vegan. > (prediction: the answer is: no clue) > (note: Goo's boy "Dutch" had a clue which consists only > of potential future wild mice, frogs and groundhogs who > are supposedly being kept down by the cattle) |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
What is the "wrongness"?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: Rudy Canoza > >> Message-ID: et> >> >> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ [...] >ALL excellent and factual observations. What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>****wit David Harrison lied: > >> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote: >> >> >>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. >> >> >> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct: >>________________________________________________ _________ >>From: "Dutch" > >>Message-ID: > >> >>The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>has positive or negative value to the animal. >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >Of course. Everything you write is lousy, That has nothing to do with your boy's paste Goober, you moron. You can NOT explain. You can't even comprehend. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:01:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:03:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>><dh@.> wrote >>> >>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as >>>> much or more consideration than their deaths >>> >>>Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? > >I asked for *your* opinion ****wit, not the opinions of other people. Why >should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? Because some of them are of positive value for one thing...one thing which you obviously can't understand. >I would have >thought that you'd have an answer ready for that one. You answered it youself years ago. It's still hard to believe you're too stupid to understand it, but since you are determined to give the impression that you are, there isn't much point in me explaining it to you every damn time you ask about it. Is there? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote: >> >>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. >> >> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct: >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: "Dutch" > >> Message-ID: > >> >> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >> has positive or negative value to the animal. >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living. That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did. >Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I point >out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born? No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is better than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive value. >> When not, can you explain why we should disregard the >> fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths: >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: Goo >> Message-ID: .net> >> >> the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral >> consideration, and gets it. >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> of billions of animals? > >Whatever number. Regardless of number, you have never been able to provide a reason why we should disregard these facts that you pasted in the past and have pretended that you are able to understand, even though your behavior gives the clearly shows that you are not. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
No clue for Goo...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:26:17 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Goo continues to wonder: >> >>>Why should the continued existence of livestock get >>>*any* of your "consideration", ****wit, apart from your >>>wish to consume them? >> >> Because you/"aras" suggest an influence: >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: Goo >> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700 >> >> "vegans" are interested in their influence on animals, >> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would >> mean no animals raised for food and other products. >> That's an influence, whether you like it or not. >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> that as yet I've been given no reason to believe would be superior >> to providing decent AW instead. > >We're not saying that it is, we're saying that raising livestock is not >morally superior as you are attempting to argue. > >>>Why are you still evading the question, ****wit: why >>>is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to >>>wild animals, continue to exist? >> >> You would have to tell me which wild animals you're going >> on about Goo. Do you have a clue about which of "them" >> you do? Could you share that clue, Goo? > >We're talking about every wild animal that is killed or displaced by pasture >lands and feed crops. There is no doubt that eliminating large ruminants >like cattle would result in enough land, food and water resources being >freed up to support *at least* as many indivdual animals of wild species, >undoubtedly more. So the argument that we ought to consider animals "getting >to experience life" actually works against you. If you want animals to >"experience life" you would probably do better as a vegan. This is from you: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "apostate" > Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:25 GMT Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's obvious. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ Do you now believe it's not true? >> (prediction: the answer is: no clue) >> (note: Goo's boy "Dutch" had a clue which consists only >> of potential future wild mice, frogs and groundhogs who >> are supposedly being kept down by the cattle) > > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
What is the "wrongness"?
dh@. wrote in news
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >>dh@. wrote: >>> __________________________________________________ _______ >>> From: Rudy Canoza > >>> Message-ID: et> >>> >>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > [...] >>ALL excellent and factual observations. > What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone? Wrongness is a relative term with value only within the context of a comparative system. Some humans like the idea that their variety of comparatives is the only validity which exists. When such thinking overwhelms all sensibility then they're legitimately called fundamentalists whether or not they approve of the moniker. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
What is the "wrongness"?
dh@. wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >dh@. wrote: > > >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> From: Rudy Canoza > > >> Message-ID: et> > >> > >> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths > >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > [...] > >ALL excellent and factual observations. > > What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone? Where's the wrongness in shooting a man dead? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
What is the "wrongness"?
<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > > wrote: > >>dh@. wrote: > >>> __________________________________________________ _______ >>> From: Rudy Canoza > >>> Message-ID: et> >>> >>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths >>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > [...] >>ALL excellent and factual observations. > > What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone? The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the causing of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the position that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong. By claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the situation" you are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto yourself, then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring to "some of them who benefit". It's a horrible mess you have created, and you just keep making it worse. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
<dh@.> wrote in message news > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > > wrote: > >>****wit David Harrison lied: >> >>> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote: >>> >>> >>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. >>> >>> >>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct: >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: "Dutch" > >>>Message-ID: > >>> >>>The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>>has positive or negative value to the animal. >>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>Of course. Everything you write is lousy, > > That has nothing to do with your boy's paste Goober, you > moron. You can NOT explain. You can't even comprehend. He reads you like a two-bit paperback ****wit, everyone does. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:01:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:03:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>> >>>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as >>>>> much or more consideration than their deaths >>>> >>>>Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? >> >>I asked for *your* opinion ****wit, not the opinions of other people. Why >>should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? > > Because some of them are of positive value for one thing Their "deaths" are of positive value? How? >...one thing > which you obviously can't understand. That's true, I don;t understand it, explain it to me. >>I would have >>thought that you'd have an answer ready for that one. > > You answered it youself years ago. It's still hard to believe you're > too > stupid to understand it, but since you are determined to give the > impression > that you are, there isn't much point in me explaining it to you every damn > time you ask about it. Is there? You keep saying that we ought to give as much consideration to their lives as to their deaths, why give consideration to their deaths? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote: >>> >>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. >>> >>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct: >>> __________________________________________________ _______ >>> From: "Dutch" > >>> Message-ID: > >>> >>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>> has positive or negative value to the animal. >>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living. > > That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering > the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did. Huh? >>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I >>point >>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born? > > No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is better > than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive > value. Why would I need to explain that? I would never made such a statement. Nobody with half a brain talks that way. >>> When not, can you explain why we should disregard the >>> fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths: >>> __________________________________________________ _______ >>> From: Goo >>> Message-ID: .net> >>> >>> the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral >>> consideration, and gets it. >>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>> of billions of animals? >> >>Whatever number. > > Regardless of number, you have never been able to provide a reason > why we should disregard these facts that you pasted in the past and have > pretended that you are able to understand, even though your behavior > gives the clearly shows that you are not. Write more coherent sentences. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:01:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison lied: >> >>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:03:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>****wit David Harrison lied: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as >>>>>much or more consideration than their deaths The fact of their lives occuring at all deserves no moral consideration. They do not "benefit" by "getting to experience life". >>>> >>>>Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? >> >>I asked for *your* opinion ****wit, not the opinions of other people. Why >>should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? > > > Because some of them are of positive value for one thing...one thing > which you obviously can't understand. 1. You don't know that their lives are of positive value TO THEM. Seeing them live a certain way is of positive value to YOU. 2. Coming into existence is NOT A BENEFIT to them. >>I would have >>thought that you'd have an answer ready for that one. > > > You answered it youself years ago. It's still hard to believe you're too > stupid to understand it There is nothing you understand that he doesn't. There is nothing you understand that I don't. We both understand far more than you, about every relevant aspect of using animals. Answer the question you've been avoiding, ****wit: WHY do you obsess - it really is warped obsession - over livestock "getting to experience life"? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison lied: >> >>>On 10 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. >>> >>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct: >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: "Dutch" > >>>Message-ID: > >>> >>>The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>>has positive or negative value to the animal. >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >> >>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living. > > > That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering > the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did. gibberish > > >>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I point >>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born? > > > No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is better > than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive value. No, he doesn't need to explain it, ****wit, because it isn't his position, and also because you aren't in favor of "aw". You don't CARE about animal welfare at all, ****wit, and we all know it. All you care about is if livestock exist, period. >>> When not, can you explain why we should disregard the >>>fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths: >>>_______________________________________________ __________ >>>From: Goo >>>Message-ID: .net> >>> >>>the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral >>>consideration, and gets it. >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >>>of billions of animals? >> >>Whatever number. > > > Regardless of number, you have never been able to provide a reason > why we should disregard these facts It is not a "fact" that livestock animals "benefit" by coming into existence, ****wit. They do not. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
Leif Erikson wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison lied: > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > >>****wit David Harrison lied: > >> > >>>On 10 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer. > >>> > >>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct: > >>>_______________________________________________ __________ > >>>From: "Dutch" > > >>>Message-ID: > > >>> > >>>The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life > >>>has positive or negative value to the animal. > >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >> > >>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living. > > > > > > That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering > > the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did. > > gibberish > > > > > > > >>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I point > >>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born? > > > > > > No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is better > > than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive value. > > No, he doesn't need to explain it, ****wit, because it > isn't his position, and also because you aren't in > favor of "aw". You don't CARE about animal welfare at > all, ****wit, and we all know it. All you care about > is if livestock exist, period. > > > >>> When not, can you explain why we should disregard the > >>>fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths: > >>>_______________________________________________ __________ > >>>From: Goo > >>>Message-ID: .net> > >>> > >>>the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral > >>>consideration, and gets it. > >>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >>>of billions of animals? > >> > >>Whatever number. > > > > > > Regardless of number, you have never been able to provide a reason > > why we should disregard these facts > > It is not a "fact" that livestock animals "benefit" by > coming into existence, ****wit. They do not. This is why it is a waste to argue with shit eating meat industry shills - just make them eat their dirt |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
What is the "wrongness"?
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" is even fooled by himself! :-)
This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it gutless punk purgerer shitbag Leif Erikson garbage cut... |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
What is the "wrongness"?
Gene wrote: > On 15 Jan 2006 15:21:35 -0800, wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > >> > >> >dh@. wrote: > >> > >> >> __________________________________________________ _______ > >> >> From: Rudy Canoza > > >> >> Message-ID: et> > >> >> > >> >> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths > >> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >> [...] > >> >ALL excellent and factual observations. > >> > >> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone? > > > > > >Where's the wrongness in shooting a man dead? > > > When he's not even armed? Yep. Same as a steer, pig, or chicken in the slaughterhouse. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fun With The Goober :Ĵ) | 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 |