Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-01-2006, 02:59 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-01-2006, 07:20 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?

[email protected] 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.


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-01-2006, 04:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-01-2006, 04:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-01-2006, 05:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?

[email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] 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.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-01-2006, 08:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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.


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2006, 08:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2006, 09:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Sheldon Harper
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?

[email protected] 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.

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-01-2006, 12:26 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?


[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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.


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2006, 12:19 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Leif's Smarter Brother
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?


Dave wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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.




  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2006, 01:23 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?


Leif's Smarter Brother wrote:
Dave wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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.


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2006, 01:31 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:03:57 -0500, Sheldon Harper wrote:

[email protected] 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.

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2006, 01:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?

On 15 Jan 2006 16:26:01 -0800, "Dave" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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.

  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2006, 01:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2006, 01:40 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THE CHALLENGE OF THE QUR’AN Stu[_16_] General Cooking 0 05-04-2011 08:10 PM
Rupert kicks the Goos' collective asses. [email protected] Vegan 11 09-09-2008 12:09 PM
Challenge: can you do better than the Goos? [email protected] Vegan 0 09-01-2006 02:50 AM
a challenge for Goo [email protected] Vegan 2 11-09-2005 08:06 PM
3 Zin challenge Emery Davis Wine 17 14-07-2005 10:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017