Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>dh explained: >>Dutch amusingly "thought": >>>dh pointed out: [...] >> At first honest "ARAs" were all in my ass about it, > >EVERYONE told you you're full of shit No one has provided a good reason for not giving the animals' lives as much consideration as their deaths Goo. Only "aras" have even made the futile attempt, except for Swamp who used only "ar" arguments, so he doesn't count for anything. Rick doesn't agree that we should, but he hasn't tried to give good reason why we should not. Ward Clark didn't agree that we should, and I damned sure wanted to learn what his objections are, but he never provided any. No one has a good reason not to Goo. Not even you. [...] >>>>"Contributing to decent AW" proves that I take quality of life into >>>>consideration. You and the Goober are lying when you say otherwise. >> >>>That fact does not come with a any moral significance, if it did, that >>>would lead to a very strong case IN FAVOUR OF AR, not against >>>it. >> >> >> No. > >Yes. I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths, and/or how doing so could possibly be a very strong case in favor of their elimination. Can any of you do better than the Goos? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
<dh@.> wrote
> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give > livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths We do give their lives consideration, that's what "animal welfare" is. If you are unable to understand that I suggest you re-enroll in primary school. |
Why is Goo's suggestion the best?
On 10 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>You're just trying to rationalize the fact that you want to eat them. __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: .com> people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the animals somehow mitigates the harm. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: et> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: .com> Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: (Jonathan Ball) Message-ID: > People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball > Message-ID: > And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live in bad conditions. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza > 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 |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote >> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give >> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths > >We do give their lives consideration Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >><dh@.> wrote >> >>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give >>>livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths >> >>We do give their lives consideration > > > Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, Here's what Dutch actually wrote that you unethically edited: "We do give their lives consideration, that's what "animal welfare" is." We do *not* give moral consideration to the morally meaningless fact of the animals' coming into existence, ****wit; we give consideration to the *quality* of life they experience, when and if they come into existence. Dutch was using a kind of shorthand, ****wit, which you knew but are too unethical to acknowledge. We always win, ****wit. You're going to learn. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
<dh@.> wrote > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote >>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give >>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths >> >>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] > > Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though > you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, I oppose your "considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that they "experienced life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder" is two-bit sophistry. Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything. Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them, we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument" fails. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give >>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths >>> >>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] >> >> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though >> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. > >I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, You do it every time you oppose me, and you do it ESPECIALLY when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life. >I oppose your >"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived >acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that *IF!* (retard) >they Had a life which was a positive experience. >"experienced >life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This >so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder" How is it aptly dubbed that? That, like the gross misnomer "ar", just appear to be extremely obvious in their dishonesty to me, and I feel quite certain you can never explain how either is a valid name for what it pretends to represent. >is two-bit >sophistry. That's a lie. >Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything >less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only >even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything. >Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them, >we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those >animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument" >fails. You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals or why it should be taken into consideration. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
dh@. wrote in :
> You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could > have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less > can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals > or why it should be taken into consideration. A) Haven't you been in the fields and heard the veggies screaming, "One more day, why can't you give me just one more day, PLEASE!!!!" while they're being harvested? B) We're meat, animals are meat, we have teeth designed to deal with meat. The question is simply whether that animal's life is worth more to it or to me. The last time I shot a squirrel I first asked it whether its life was worth more to itself or to me. The answer sounded an awful lot like a squeaky "ewe" so I shot it. It was a tasty lunch. Armchair philosophy will never, under any circumstances, come between my fork and my mouth. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
dh@. wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > ><dh@.> wrote > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >>><dh@.> wrote > >>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give > >>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths > >>> > >>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] > >> > >> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though > >> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. > > > >I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, > > You do it every time you oppose me, He doesn't and you know it. > and you do it ESPECIALLY > when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life. > > >I oppose your > >"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived > >acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that > > *IF!* (retard) > > >they > > Had a life which was a positive experience. The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they also thank you for eating the grain? > > >"experienced > >life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This > >so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder" > > How is it aptly dubbed that? That, like the gross misnomer "ar", just > appear to be extremely obvious in their dishonesty to me, and I feel quite > certain you can never explain how either is a valid name for what it > pretends to represent. > > >is two-bit > >sophistry. > > That's a lie. > > >Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything > >less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only > >even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything. > >Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them, > >we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those > >animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument" > >fails. > > You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could > have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less > can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals > or why it should be taken into consideration. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
Dave wrote: > dh@. wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > > > ><dh@.> wrote > > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> > > >>><dh@.> wrote > > >>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give > > >>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths > > >>> > > >>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] > > >> > > >> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though > > >> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. > > > > > >I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, > > > > You do it every time you oppose me, > > He doesn't and you know it. > > > and you do it ESPECIALLY > > when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life. > > > > >I oppose your > > >"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived > > >acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that > > > > *IF!* (retard) > > > > >they > > > > Had a life which was a positive experience. > > The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain > probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they > also thank you for eating the grain? Could we have some photographic evidence of this? > > > > >"experienced > > >life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This > > >so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder" > > > > How is it aptly dubbed that? That, like the gross misnomer "ar", just > > appear to be extremely obvious in their dishonesty to me, and I feel quite > > certain you can never explain how either is a valid name for what it > > pretends to represent. > > > > >is two-bit > > >sophistry. > > > > That's a lie. > > > > >Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything > > >less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only > > >even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything. > > >Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them, > > >we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those > > >animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument" > > >fails. > > > > You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could > > have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less > > can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals > > or why it should be taken into consideration. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
Leif's Smarter Brother wrote: > Dave wrote: > > dh@. wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ><dh@.> wrote > > > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>><dh@.> wrote > > > >>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give > > > >>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths > > > >>> > > > >>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] > > > >> > > > >> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though > > > >> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. > > > > > > > >I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, > > > > > > You do it every time you oppose me, > > > > He doesn't and you know it. > > > > > and you do it ESPECIALLY > > > when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life. > > > > > > >I oppose your > > > >"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived > > > >acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that > > > > > > *IF!* (retard) > > > > > > >they > > > > > > Had a life which was a positive experience. > > > > The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain > > probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they > > also thank you for eating the grain? > > Could we have some photographic evidence of this? I don't have any photos but I can give you a citation. http://www.okrangelandswest.okstate....ubs/F-5006.pdf > > > > > > >"experienced > > > >life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This > > > >so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder" > > > > > > How is it aptly dubbed that? That, like the gross misnomer "ar", just > > > appear to be extremely obvious in their dishonesty to me, and I feel quite > > > certain you can never explain how either is a valid name for what it > > > pretends to represent. > > > > > > >is two-bit > > > >sophistry. > > > > > > That's a lie. > > > > > > >Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything > > > >less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only > > > >even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything. > > > >Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them, > > > >we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those > > > >animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument" > > > >fails. > > > > > > You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could > > > have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less > > > can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals > > > or why it should be taken into consideration. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:03:57 -0500, Sheldon Harper > wrote:
>dh@. wrote in : > >> You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could >> have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less >> can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals >> or why it should be taken into consideration. > >A) Haven't you been in the fields and heard the veggies screaming, I've been in the fields, but never heard any of that. >"One more day, why can't you give me just one more day, PLEASE!!!!" >while they're being harvested? > >B) We're meat, animals are meat, we have teeth designed to deal >with meat. > >The question is simply whether that animal's life is worth more >to it or to me. A person can ask whatever questions he's able to think about. If you can only think about one, it certainly doesn't limit me to that one question as well. On top of that there's no reason to believe that their life is worth less to them than a meal is worth to you, so you're not even being honest when you pretend that the answer to what you apparently consider to be the only question has any sort of meaning to you. It doesn't. >The last time I shot a squirrel I first asked it >whether its life was worth more to itself or to me. I've killed a number of animals, but have always been aware that asking them any such question is of no use at all, so I never asked. >The answer >sounded an awful lot like a squeaky "ewe" so I shot it. It didn't answer you at all. Any noise it may have made obviously had nothing to do with any question you might have asked. >It was >a tasty lunch. I can believe that. Not much meat on them though. >Armchair philosophy will never, under any circumstances, come >between my fork and my mouth. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On 15 Jan 2006 16:26:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> > >> ><dh@.> wrote >> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> >>><dh@.> wrote >> >>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give >> >>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths >> >>> >> >>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] >> >> >> >> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though >> >> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. >> > >> >I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, >> >> You do it every time you oppose me, > >He doesn't He always does, and I know it. >and you know it. > >> and you do it ESPECIALLY >> when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life. >> >> >I oppose your >> >"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived >> >acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that >> >> *IF!* (retard) >> >> >they >> >> Had a life which was a positive experience. > >The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain >probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they >also thank you for eating the grain? They were not deliberately provided with life as livestock are. But if you want to explain why we should eliminate all livestock so that more wildlife can live, explain exactly which wildlife you are referring to and why we should do it. So far no one has been able to explain that, among other things. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:03:57 -0500, Sheldon Harper > wrote: > > >****wit David Harrison lied: > > > >> You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could > >> have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less > >> can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals > >> or why it should be taken into consideration. > > > >A) Haven't you been in the fields and heard the veggies screaming, > > I've been in the fields, That's a lie, ****wit. > >"One more day, why can't you give me just one more day, PLEASE!!!!" > >while they're being harvested? > > > >B) We're meat, animals are meat, we have teeth designed to deal > >with meat. > > > >The question is simply whether that animal's life is worth more > >to it or to me. > > A person can ask whatever questions he's able to think about. You waste your life "thinking" of really stupid questions and illogical beliefs, ****wit. > >The last time I shot a squirrel I first asked it > >whether its life was worth more to itself or to me. > > I've killed a number of animals, but have always been aware that > asking them any such question is of no use at all, so I never asked. You stupid ****wit. He's being facetious. You dumb, shit-eating ****wit. > >The answer > >sounded an awful lot like a squeaky "ewe" so I shot it. > > It didn't answer you at all. You dumb, shit-eating ****wit. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On 15 Jan 2006 16:26:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >****wit David Harrison lied: > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >****wit David Harrison lied: > >> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>****wit David Harrison lied: > >> >>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give > >> >>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths > >> >>> > >> >>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] > >> >> > >> >> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though > >> >> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. > >> > > >> >I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, > >> > >> You do it every time you oppose me, > > > >He doesn't > > He always does, and I know it. He NEVER does, and you know it, ****wit. > > >and you know it. > > > >> and you do it ESPECIALLY > >> when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life. > >> > >> >I oppose your > >> >"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived > >> >acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that > >> > >> *IF!* (retard) > >> > >> >they > >> > >> Had a life which was a positive experience. > > > >The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain > >probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they > >also thank you for eating the grain? > > They were not deliberately provided with life as livestock are. Indirectly, ****wit, they were. The decision to grow the grain was deliberate, and that "caused" the birds to nest there and have their broods. As usual, stupid ****wit, you're evading the real question: WHY are you so obsessed with livestock, in particular, continuing to exist? Why do you think we can't see that you are concerned with YOUR welfare, not theirs? We DO see it, ****wit. You don't fool anyone, not even your own stupid shitty self. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
<dh@.> wrote > On 15 Jan 2006 16:26:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: [..] >>The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain >>probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they >>also thank you for eating the grain? > > They were not deliberately provided with life as livestock are. So what? What difference does it make to animals why they are born? > But if you want to explain why we should eliminate all livestock so > that more wildlife can live, explain exactly which wildlife you are > referring to and why we should do it. So far no one has been able > to explain that, among other things. That's not what we're suggesting. We're saying that *if* livestock were no longer bred for food, that would free up a great deal of land, water and food resource for wildlife. Therefore your complaint that eliminating livestock would mean animals lose out on the experience of life is a false complaint. At least as many animals would be born, it would just be different animals. Your argument is circular sophistry, and you are floundering badly with it. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On 15 Jan 2006 16:26:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison lied: >> >>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>****wit David Harrison lied: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give >>>>>>>livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths >>>>>> >>>>>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] >>>>> >>>>> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though >>>>>you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. >>>> >>>>I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, >>> >>> You do it every time you oppose me, >> >>He doesn't > > > He always does, and I know it. He *NEVER* does, and you know it, liar. >>and you know it. >> >> >>>and you do it ESPECIALLY >>>when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life. >>> >>> >>>>I oppose your >>>>"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived >>>>acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that >>> >>> *IF!* (retard) >>> >>> >>>>they >>> >>> Had a life which was a positive experience. >> >>The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain >>probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they >>also thank you for eating the grain? > > > They were not deliberately provided with life as livestock are. > But if you want to explain why we should eliminate all livestock so > that more wildlife can live, explain exactly which wildlife you are > referring to It doesn't make any difference "which wildlife", ****wit. > and why we should do it. He isn't saying we "should" do it, ****wit. He's observing, correctly, that if we stopped raising livestock, there would be more wildlife. That's a true statement, and the numbers are irrelevant, as are the kinds of wildlife. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
****wit David Harrison lied:
> [...] God damn, I just love beating up on ****wit! |
gutless punk and shitbag 'bpgclm'
|
Which "Leif" is Goo?
On 16 Jan 2006 17:05:03 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>homo pantywaist chickenshit fudgepacker ronnie hamilton forged Leif's >blabbered: >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> > homo pantywaist chickenshit fudgepacker ronnie hamilton forged Leif's >> > name and blabbered: >> > > dh@. wrote: >> > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >dh wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> On 10 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >>>You're just trying to rationalize the fact that you want to eat them. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> > > > >> From: Goo >> > > > >> Message-ID: .com> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict >> > > > >> on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the animals >> > > > >> somehow mitigates the harm. >> > > > > >> > > > >A deliberately dishonest and incomplete citation, >> > > > >****wit. Here's what was originally written, ****wit: >> > > > > >> > > > > The comment you ridiculed, correctly, is from >> > > > > ****wit David Harrison. ****wit subscribes to a >> > > > > bankrupt, illogical pseudo-philosophy called The >> > > > > (Il)Logic of the Larder. According to that bit of >> > > > > ****wittery, people who consume animals justify the >> > > > > harm they inflict on the animals >> > > > [...] >> > > > >> > > > What is the harm Goo? I've been asking you/"aras" >> > > > that for a long time, and you never explain exactly what >> > > > it is. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Where's the harm in shooting a man dead? >> > >> > Stop forging other people's names, ronnie, you chickenshit punk. >> >> >> You were using S. Meatloaf or something now you come back using Leif >> just because I was using it. > >I'm Leif Erikson and have been posting under that name here for months. > You only first forged the name yesterday. Stop forging the names of >active posters, you chickenshit punk. The stupidest, most childish and most dishonest of our Leif Eriksons is Goo--short for Goobernicus, the moron who thinks he's a genius--and who also thinks of himself as being all of the following and mo Jonathan Ball Citizen Benfez Wilson Woods Radical Moderate Bingo Edward George Bill Fred Mystery Poster Merlin the dog Bob the dog elvira Dieter "Dieter " > Abner Hale Roger Whitaker ****tard Apoo Ted Bell Jay Santos Rudy Canoza Trappist Leif Erikson S. Maizlich SlipperySlope a.k.a. the Gonad |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
dh@. wrote: > On 15 Jan 2006 16:26:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> ><dh@.> wrote > >> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>><dh@.> wrote > >> >>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give > >> >>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths > >> >>> > >> >>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare] > >> >> > >> >> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though > >> >> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years. > >> > > >> >I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, > >> > >> You do it every time you oppose me, > > > >He doesn't > > He always does, and I know it. He never opposes the suggestion that the animals we raise for food should be treated humanely. He only opposes the idea that we should raise animals for the purpose of treating them humanely. IOW he doesn't oppose AW only LoL. > >and you know it. > > > >> and you do it ESPECIALLY > >> when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life. > >> > >> >I oppose your > >> >"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived > >> >acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that > >> > >> *IF!* (retard) > >> > >> >they > >> > >> Had a life which was a positive experience. > > > >The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain > >probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they > >also thank you for eating the grain? > > They were not deliberately provided with life as livestock are. If you wish to consider the consequences then raising livestock and cultivating grain both cause some animals to exist while preventing others from existing so the same LoL can be applied to either. If you wish to consider the intentions then livestock are raised so that people can enjoy eating animal source foods and grain is cultivated so that people can enjoy eating plant source foods. In neither case is decent lives for animals or even decent lives for livestock the objective. > But if you want to explain why we should eliminate all livestock I don't advocate eliminating all livestock. > so > that more wildlife can live, explain exactly which wildlife you are > referring to Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience life and why does it make any difference to the arguments I am presenting? > and why we should do it. Why not? > So far no one has been able to explain that, among other things. What other things? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:24:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On 15 Jan 2006 16:26:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > >[..] > >>>The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain >>>probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they >>>also thank you for eating the grain? >> >> They were not deliberately provided with life as livestock are. > >So what? What difference does it make to animals why they are born? > >> But if you want to explain why we should eliminate all livestock so >> that more wildlife can live, explain exactly which wildlife you are >> referring to and why we should do it. So far no one has been able >> to explain that, among other things. > >That's not what we're suggesting. We're saying that *if* livestock were no >longer bred for food, that would free up a great deal of land, water and >food resource for wildlife. Therefore your complaint that eliminating >livestock would mean animals lose out on the experience of life is a false >complaint. At least as many animals would be born, it would just be >different animals. IF so, then WHY should we promote life for WHICH wild animals??? >Your argument is circular sophistry, and you are >floundering badly with it. The facts I point out are solid. The floundering is by you/"aras" flopping around pretending it would be better to have only wildlife with no livestock, while at the same time being completely unable to even explain which potential wildlife you keep going on about, much MUCH less can you explain WHY??? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Goo proclaimed:
>dh asked: >>why we should do it. > >He's >observing, correctly, that if we stopped raising >livestock, there would be more wildlife. If true, so what Goo? Ingrid? Anyone? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
****wit David Harrison lied, again:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Goo proclaimed: > > >>****wit David Harrison lied: > > >>>why we should do it. >> >>He's observing, correctly, that if we stopped raising >>livestock, there would be more wildlife. > > > If true, so what? It is true. The "so what" is, animals would continue to live (not that there's any ethical importance to it); they just wouldn't be livestock animals. There is NO importance to the empty factlette of livestock "getting to experience life", ****wit. No rational person should care that they do. Answer the question you keep evading, ****wit: WHY are you so obsessed that *livestock*, in particular, continue to exist? We *know* that it isn't on their behalf, because they don't care if they exist, and coming into existence is not a "benefit" to them; so tell us the real reason you obsess over their existence. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience >life Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can exist. >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I >am presenting? Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all. It's entirely up to you to try to change that. >> and why we should do it. > >Why not? Because we have no reason to. >> So far no one has been able to explain that, among other things. > >What other things? Which particular rights for which particular animals? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
<dh@.> wrote > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Goo proclaimed: > >>dh asked: > >>>why we should do it. >> >>He's >>observing, correctly, that if we stopped raising >>livestock, there would be more wildlife. > > If true, so what Goo? Ingrid? Anyone? So therefore it is an outright lie to pretend that raising livestock causes more animals to experience life. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
dh@. wrote: > On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > > >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience > >life > > Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether > or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can > exist. Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life. > > >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I > >am presenting? > > Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to > consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all. > It's entirely up to you to try to change that. Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such decisions entirely in the hands of nature. > >> and why we should do it. > > > >Why not? > > Because we have no reason to. So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life unless they are farmed? > > >> So far no one has been able to explain that, among other things. > > > >What other things? > > Which particular rights for which particular animals? How about the right to be treated compassionately for all animals? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
Dave wrote:
> dh@. wrote: > >>On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >>>Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience >>>life >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether >>or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can >>exist. > > > Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life. Nothing wrong with humans making the decision; but we ought to make it for the right reasons. Doing something to cause animals to "get to experience life" should NOT be undertaken out of the false belief that the animals "get something" out of the "deal". > >>>and why does it make any difference to the arguments I >>>am presenting? >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to >>consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all. >>It's entirely up to you to try to change that. > > > Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over > which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to > treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such > decisions entirely in the hands of nature. > > >>>>and why we should do it. >>> >>>Why not? >> >> Because we have no reason to. > > > So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life > unless they are farmed? > >>>>So far no one has been able to explain that, among other things. >>> >>>What other things? >> >> Which particular rights for which particular animals? > > > How about the right to be treated compassionately for all animals? > |
Humorous stupid Goobility
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Goo "thought":
>dh pointed out: >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can >> exist. > >No LOL! Your stupidity is HILARIOUS Goo! |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:44:30 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>****wit David Harrison lied, again: > >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Goo proclaimed: >> >> >>>****wit David Harrison lied: >> >> >>>>why we should do it. >>> >>>He's observing, correctly, that if we stopped raising >>>livestock, there would be more wildlife. >> >> >> If true, so what? > >It is true. The "so what" is, animals would continue >to live (not that there's any ethical importance to >it); they just wouldn't be livestock animals. So what if they did Goo? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience >> >life >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can >> exist. > >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life. My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide? "aras" don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying to get you/"them" to provide some details. >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I >> >am presenting? >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all. >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that. > >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such >decisions entirely in the hands of nature. We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value, than we are for wildlife. As yet no one has provided reason to eliminate livestock so supposedly more of some type(s) of wildlife could possibly exist instead. >> >> and why we should do it. >> > >> >Why not? >> >> Because we have no reason to. > >So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life >unless they are farmed? I don't see any reason to only consider the lives of animals who are not. It's up to you/"aras" to provide some reason(s) to disregard the livestock lives. >> >> So far no one has been able to explain that, among other things. >> > >> >What other things? >> >> Which particular rights for which particular animals? > >How about the right to be treated compassionately for all animals? It would end civilization as we know it if it were to be enforced. Just imagine how hard it would be to build a road and still be compassionate to all of the animals involved...or a shopping center, or a hospital, or school, or to mine products, or produce electricity, or wood products, or paper products, or crops... |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
****wit David Harrison lied, again:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:44:30 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >****wit David Harrison lied, again: > > > >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Goo proclaimed: > >> > >> > >>>****wit David Harrison lied: > >> > >> > >>>>why we should do it. > >>> > >>>He's observing, correctly, that if we stopped raising > >>>livestock, there would be more wildlife. > >> > >> > >> If true, so what? > > > >It is true. The "so what" is, animals would continue > >to live (not that there's any ethical importance to > >it); they just wouldn't be livestock animals. > > So what if they did? Waste someone else's time, ****wit. You've lost on this one. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
<dh@.> wrote > As yet no one has provided reason to > eliminate livestock so supposedly more of some type(s) of wildlife > could possibly exist instead. YOU are the one advocating that we ought to raise livestock, as yet YOU have not provided any reason why we should raise livestock instead of allowing wildlife to use those resources. The only *valid* reason to do so is to use them for meat and other products. Clearly, having them "experience life" is a non-issue, since animals will exist regardless. >>> >> and why we should do it. >>> > >>> >Why not? >>> >>> Because we have no reason to. >> >>So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life >>unless they are farmed? > > I don't see any reason to only consider the lives of animals who > are not. It's up to you/"aras" to provide some reason(s) to disregard > the livestock lives. The reason is that just as many or more animals will exist anyway. If we raise livestock, all those land water and food resources go to them, if we don't, it goes to support more wildlife. Why should we especially "consider" the lives of livestock animals? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
Dutch wrote: > <dh@.> wrote > > > As yet no one has provided reason to > > eliminate livestock so supposedly more of some type(s) of wildlife > > could possibly exist instead. > > YOU are the one advocating that we ought to raise livestock, as yet YOU have > not provided any reason why we should raise livestock instead of allowing > wildlife to use those resources. The only *valid* reason to do so is to use > them for meat and other products. Clearly, having them "experience life" is > a non-issue, since animals will exist regardless. > > > >>> >> and why we should do it. > >>> > > >>> >Why not? > >>> > >>> Because we have no reason to. > >> > >>So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life > >>unless they are farmed? > > > > I don't see any reason to only consider the lives of animals who > > are not. It's up to you/"aras" to provide some reason(s) to disregard > > the livestock lives. > > The reason is that just as many or more animals will exist anyway. If we > raise livestock, all those land water and food resources go to them, if we > don't, it goes to support more wildlife. Why should we especially "consider" > the lives of livestock animals? No they won't stupid! Stop breeding them and their numbers will decrease. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
"Ron" > wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> >>So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life >> >>unless they are farmed? >> > >> > I don't see any reason to only consider the lives of animals who >> > are not. It's up to you/"aras" to provide some reason(s) to disregard >> > the livestock lives. >> >> The reason is that just as many or more animals will exist anyway. If we >> raise livestock, all those land water and food resources go to them, if >> we >> don't, it goes to support more wildlife. Why should we especially >> "consider" >> the lives of livestock animals? > > > No they won't stupid! > > Stop breeding them and their numbers will decrease. Shut up if you can't follow the conversation. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
Dutch wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > > >> >>So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life > >> >>unless they are farmed? > >> > > >> > I don't see any reason to only consider the lives of animals who > >> > are not. It's up to you/"aras" to provide some reason(s) to disregard > >> > the livestock lives. > >> > >> The reason is that just as many or more animals will exist anyway. If we > >> raise livestock, all those land water and food resources go to them, if > >> we > >> don't, it goes to support more wildlife. Why should we especially > >> "consider" > >> the lives of livestock animals? > > > > > > No they won't stupid! > > > > Stop breeding them and their numbers will decrease. > > Shut up if you can't follow the conversation. Shut up if you have no common sense Dutch. Eating animals is unhealthy and the manner in which they are raised and processed is inhumane. Stop eating them and there is no reason to continue to breed millions of them into existence. The crop lands now devoted to animal feeds can be used to grow food for people. Now run along and give Goober his enema. |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
Leif Erikson wrote: > Dave wrote: > > > dh@. wrote: > > > >>On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience > >>>life > >> > >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether > >>or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can > >>exist. > > > > > > Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life. > > Nothing wrong with humans making the decision; > but we > ought to make it for the right reasons. Doing > something to cause animals to "get to experience life" > should NOT be undertaken out of the false belief that > the animals "get something" out of the "deal". In order to support the logic of the larder I think dhld needs to show that livestock farming benefits animals overall compared with allowing nature to decide which ones get to experience life. > > > >>>and why does it make any difference to the arguments I > >>>am presenting? > >> > >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to > >>consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all. > >>It's entirely up to you to try to change that. > > > > > > Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over > > which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to > > treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such > > decisions entirely in the hands of nature. > > > > > >>>>and why we should do it. > >>> > >>>Why not? > >> > >> Because we have no reason to. > > > > > > So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life > > unless they are farmed? > > > >>>>So far no one has been able to explain that, among other things. > >>> > >>>What other things? > >> > >> Which particular rights for which particular animals? > > > > > > How about the right to be treated compassionately for all animals? > > |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
dh@. wrote: > On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience > >> >life > >> > >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether > >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can > >> exist. > > > >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life. > > My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide? No reason why we should but that is not the point. You are promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative that also allowes animals to experience life. > "aras" > don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying > to get you/"them" to provide some details. > > >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I > >> >am presenting? > >> > >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to > >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all. > >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that. > > > >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over > >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to > >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such > >decisions entirely in the hands of nature. > > We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent > lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value, > than we are for wildlife. In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed. > As yet no one has provided reason to > eliminate livestock so supposedly more of some type(s) of wildlife > could possibly exist instead. My objection is with your reasons for advocating the raising of livestock, not with animal farming per se. > >> >> and why we should do it. > >> > > >> >Why not? > >> > >> Because we have no reason to. > > > >So you don't think it's a good thing for animals to experience life > >unless they are farmed? > > I don't see any reason to only consider the lives of animals who > are not. That is exactly what farm animals are before they are bought into existence by processes of procreation that can happen with or without human intervention. > It's up to you/"aras" to provide some reason(s) to disregard > the livestock lives. > > >> >> So far no one has been able to explain that, among other things. > >> > > >> >What other things? > >> > >> Which particular rights for which particular animals? > > > >How about the right to be treated compassionately for all animals? > > It would end civilization as we know it if it were to be enforced. > Just imagine how hard it would be to build a road and still be > compassionate to all of the animals involved...or a shopping > center, or a hospital, or school, or to mine products, or produce > electricity, or wood products, or paper products, or crops... |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience >> >> >life >> >> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can >> >> exist. >> > >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life. >> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide? > >No reason why we should Agreed. > but that is not the point. It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on animals. >You are >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative Why? >that also allowes animals to experience life. My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide? >> "aras" >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying >> to get you/"them" to provide some details. >> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I >> >> >am presenting? >> >> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all. >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that. >> > >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature. >> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value, >> than we are for wildlife. > >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed. Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't you try? |
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?
On 23 Jan 2006 19:04:54 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Leif Erikson wrote: >> Dave wrote: >> >> > dh@. wrote: >> > >> >>On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience >> >>>life >> >> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether >> >>or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can >> >>exist. >> > >> > >> > Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life. >> >> Nothing wrong with humans making the decision; >> but we >> ought to make it for the right reasons. Doing >> something to cause animals to "get to experience life" >> should NOT be undertaken out of the false belief that >> the animals "get something" out of the "deal". > >In order to support the logic of the larder I think dhld needs to >show that livestock farming benefits animals overall compared >with allowing nature to decide which ones get to experience life. Since that sort of thinking can go beyond just livestock, it would be better to consider how human influence benefits which animals and how, imo. There's no reason to limit it to livestock. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter