typical racist spew from vegans...
rick wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message > ... > A concentration camp/prison camp >>could be run by the British during the Boer War, by Soviets >>during Stalin's regime, by Americans at Andersonville or >>Bosque Redondo, and by most other regimes at one time or >>another in most countries. > ========================= > Which wasn't genocide, if fact or your fiction. Exactly. If you reread my posts, that was the point *I* made. Treatment of animals in factory farming is not genocide, because the purpose is not to exterminate a species or breed. The owners want to breed *more* animals, make them grow bigger and faster, and produce more, rather than eliminate them. The suffering of the individual animal is ignored as long as enough of them survive and produce to make the owners a profit. |
typical racist spew from vegans...
Karen Winter blabbered and lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > > > She is morally equating the treatment of chickens to the treatment of > > Jews in Nazi Germany and to black slaves in the American antebellum > > south. > > Among other groups. That doesn't help you. No matter how many or few groups you insult in this way, you're trivializing what happened to them. It *is* racist in the sense that you are objectifying these groups in order to exploit their experience for your political goals. You trivialize their experience, and you do it in order to serve your own crass political agenda. They hate you for it. > > > Whenever this happens, > > some MANY. Virtually all the major influential people who are acknowledged as leaders of these communities. > > > members of those groups are always > > aggrieved, and rightly so, for the false moral equivalence being > > alleged by the "aras" ("animal rights assholes"). > > Some MANY. See above. > > > Jews and American > > blacks quite reasonably feel that equating the treatment their > > ancestors suffered to the treatment of animals both trivializes the > > horrors of their past unjust treatment, and also in some way *does* > > suggest that they are less than fully human. The "aras" always hastily > > and in their best PC protest voices insist that they aren't being > > racist, but the aggrieved groups never really buy the denials, and they > > shouldn't. At the very least, the comparisons *do* trivialize what > > Jews and blacks experienced. > > In your opinion. In the opinion of most acknowledged leaders of these communities. > > You ignore the fact that some members of the groups involved *also* > put forth the comparisons with what has happened to members of their > own group. Few. |
typical racist spew from vegans...
Dave wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > Dave wrote: > > > rick wrote: > > > > ============================ > > > > LOL By comparing chickens to Jews... > > > > > > She is not comparing chickens to Jews per se. She is > > > comparing the treatment of chickens in factory farms > > > today with the treatment of humans who happened to > > > be Jewish in concentration camps. The argument would > > > have been just the same whatever the race of people who > > > had been sent to those camps. > > > > She is morally equating the treatment of chickens to the treatment of > > Jews in Nazi Germany > > And all other people of whatever race who suffered similar misfortunes. One would hope - yet somehow, mysteriously, only Jews and American blacks ever seem to be mentioned. I wonder why that is? > > > > and to black slaves in the American antebellum > > south. > > And all other slaves of whatever race. See above, and think about why only Jews and black American slaves ever seem to be brought up by the "aras" in their vile, trivializing and bogus moral equivalence. > > > Whenever this happens, members of those groups are always > > aggrieved, and rightly so, for the false moral equivalence being > > alleged by the "aras" ("animal rights assholes"). Jews and American > > blacks quite reasonably feel that equating the treatment their > > ancestors suffered to the treatment of animals both trivializes the > > horrors of their past unjust treatment, and also in some way *does* > > suggest that they are less than fully human. > > If they paid attention to the context Now you're telling members of these aggrieved groups that they're not paying attention to what you think they should. How patronizing. > they would see that the point is > not to trivialize the horrors of the past but to emphacize the horrors > of the present. That's the commonly given, and wholly bullshit, explanation. But the trivialization is real. The excuse-making and hand-waving and "no no no, that's not what I meant..." ring hollow, because they *are* hollow. There is no moral > In making these comparisons Glorfindel Karen Winter. Her name is Karen Winter. > does not > suggest that blacks or jews are less than fully human. Implicitly, that's exactly what she does. > > The "aras" always hastily > > and in their best PC protest voices insist that they aren't being > > racist, > > They aren't. Yes, they are. They are objectifying these historically aggrieved groups in order to EXPLOIT their experience for the "animal rights assholes'" narrow political purpose. > > > but the aggrieved groups never really buy the denials, > > If I were black or a Jewish I would consider the above statement > to be a slur on my intelligence. The slur on their intelligence is what YOU did, davie, when you said they are too stupid to pay attention to the "context". I am not in any way casting aspersions on their intelligence by telling you - davie and Karen Winter - that blacks and Jews are telling you you're full of shit. > > and they > > shouldn't. At the very least, the comparisons *do* trivialize what > > Jews and blacks experienced. > > > > > > > > > > > Hand waving noted... > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It also displays their hatred > > > > >> of people quite explicitly too... > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > ====================== > > > > I don't. Didn't you just see bpg posts with the implicit glee > > > > that hunters were killing each other instead of animals? That > > > > is/has been a typical vegan spew every hunting season.. > > > > > > That is not the example you just claimed demonstrated vegan > > > hatred of people. The bpg posts you now refer to don't show > > > that all vegans hate people just that some vegans hate some > > > people. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> That you > > > > >> >> can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you > > > > >> >> too... > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. > > > > >> > Raising > > > > >> > animals > > > > >> > for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide. > > > > >> ============================== > > > > >> LOL I think that that is what I have been saying. > > > > > > > > > > It is the part of what you have been saying that I can agree > > > > > with. > > > > > The idea that it is racist to make such analogies is absurd. > > > > ================== > > > > No, it is not previsly because they see animals and people as > > > > interchangable. > > > > > > By the same token one would expect them to see different races > > > of people as interchangable, which is of course the very antithesis > > > of racism. > > > > > > > >> You should > > > > >> tell that to the vegan LOONS. They comapre animals to slaves > > > > >> and > > > > >> death camps all the time making just such claims... > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> How about the blond, blue-eyed British, > > > > >> >> >> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack > > > > >> >> >> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is > > > > >> >> >> showing. > > > > >> >> >> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to > > > > >> >> >> the > > > > >> >> >> legal status of animals: both are chattel property. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> <snip> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > |
Buying animals :( was typical racist spew from vegans...)
|
typical racist spew from vegans...
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > rick wrote: > >> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message >> ... > > >> A concentration camp/prison camp >>>could be run by the British during the Boer War, by Soviets >>>during Stalin's regime, by Americans at Andersonville or >>>Bosque Redondo, and by most other regimes at one time or >>>another in most countries. > >> ========================= >> Which wasn't genocide, if fact or your fiction. > > Exactly. If you reread my posts, that was the point *I* > made. Treatment of animals in factory farming is not > genocide, because the purpose is not to exterminate a > species or breed. ============================= Yet you continue to compare them to genocide victums. Only now are you tap dacing and spewing your strawmen about 'other groups.' The owners want to breed *more* animals, > make them grow bigger and faster, and produce more, rather > than eliminate them. The suffering of the individual > animal is ignored as long as enough of them survive and > produce to make the owners a profit. you ignored you bigotry again, killer... > It is not bigotry or racism to say that the treatment of > those held in such facilities is, and was, immoral, whether > the victims are human or non-human. > ===================================== LOL Now you're just racist enough to know how Jews and blacks should feel about how you equate them to animals? Thanks for even more proof of your bigotry, killer... > |
typical racist spew from vegans...
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> >>>She is morally equating the treatment of chickens to the treatment of >>>Jews in Nazi Germany >>And all other people of whatever race who suffered similar misfortunes. > One would hope - yet somehow, mysteriously, only Jews and American > blacks ever seem to be mentioned. I wonder why that is? Because *YOU* and *RICK* mentioned them first. It was a deliberate tactic to drag in this bogus claim of racism. *I* did not mention either group in my original post(s). I did not intend to limit my comments to either group. In fact, the experience of Jews in the extermination camps is not a good analogy to the experience of animals in factory farms, as I said in my own post, because the purpose of the extermination camps -- which were not the only kind of concentration camps even in Germany, and certainly not in history in general -- was not anything like the purpose of factory farms. I specifically mentioned a number of other groups. It is not an issue of *groups* anyway, but of individuals who happen to be identified as members of some group. Any individual is a member of more than one group, and it is racist in itself to define individuals by one characteristic alone. It is *you* who are being racist here, not I. <snip> Glorfindel >>does not >>suggest that blacks or jews are less than fully human. > Implicitly, that's exactly what she does. Only if all other humans are also less than fully human -- Were British slaves less than human? Were the dead at Andersonville less than human? Was St. Patrick less than human? He was a slave. <snip> > I am not in any way casting aspersions on their intelligence by telling > you - Dave and Glorfindel - that blacks and Jews are telling you > you're full of shit. As yes -- Blacks like Alice Walker and Jews like Singer no doubt. <snip> |
typical racist spew from vegans...
rick wrote:
> snip the racist spew from karen..... I think it's worth elaborating that "vegans" ("animal rights assholes") don't set out to equate Jews and blacks with pigs and chickens; their racism (for want of a better term) is not active and aggressive, i.e., is not based on bigotry and animus toward those (and other) groups. Rather, it's of a secondary and derivative nature. They are so eager to make their ideological point, and so morally bankrupt that they have no sense of moral perspective, that they casually objectify Jews and blacks in order to exploit the experiences of those groups, and thereby trivialize those experiences. Their ("animal rights assholes'") fundamental lack of moral perspective leads them to equate things that are inherently NOT MORALLY EQUAL, and as a result they inflict gross insult on contemporary members of those groups. It is very telling that in North America at least, the ONLY historically aggrieved groups they ever mention are Jews and blacks. The reflexiveness of this attempt, its automaticity, is yet more evidence of their utter lack of moral perspective. |
typical racist spew from vegans...
Karen Winter, liar ordinaire, lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> She is morally equating the treatment of chickens to the treatment of >>>> Jews in Nazi Germany > > >>> And all other people of whatever race who suffered similar misfortunes. > > >> One would hope - yet somehow, mysteriously, only Jews and American >> blacks ever seem to be mentioned. I wonder why that is? > > > Because *YOU* and *RICK* mentioned them first. In historical context, no. "animal rights assholes" mentioned it first. "aras" have *always* attempted to invoke the holocaust and American slavery - thereby trivializing them - in order to advance their decrepit and evil agenda, and they have always invoked these *FIRST*. > It was a deliberate > tactic to drag in this bogus claim of racism. *I* did not mention > either group in my original post(s). *YOU* have mentioned both of them before, Karen, you ****ing liar. You gushingly cited, even before having read it, "Eternal Treblinka", and you practically creamed your butch jeans over some ****ing Boria Sax book, *also* before having read it. The claim is not bogus at all, Karen. Your invocation of American black slaves and holocaust Jews - *always* blacks and Jews - is racist to the core. It is absolutely objectifying them in order to exploit their experiences for your political agenda. >>> [Karen Winter] does not >>> suggest that blacks or jews are less than fully human. > > >> Implicitly, that's exactly what she does. > > > Only if all other humans are also less than fully human -- You only ever mention American black slaves and holocaust Juews. >> I am not in any way casting aspersions on their intelligence by telling >> you - Dave and Glorfindel - that blacks and Jews are telling you >> you're full of shit. > > > As yes -- Blacks like Alice Walker and Jews like Singer no doubt. No. And "blacks" is not a proper noun: "b", not "B". Hows this for Jews telling you your a racist, morally bankrupt ****, Karen? A disturbing development that has emerged in some animal and environmental activist circles is the use of Holocaust imagery to promote their causes. The latest example is the Web site for the National Primate Research Exhibition Hall, which animal rights activists hope to build between two primate research facilities in Madison, Wisconsin, compares itself to the Holocaust Memorial in Auschwitz. [...] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a Norfolk, Virginia, based nonprofit animal rights organization, is one of the most well known organizations that has utilized Holocaust imagery in their advertising campaigns and on their Web sites. On May 5, 2005, however, PETA issued an apology for its "Holocaust on Your Plate" exhibit, which traveled to more than 100 American and foreign cities. The exhibit compared the treatment of farm animals to the victims of the Nazi concentration camps. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said she realized that the campaign had caused pain: "This was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry." http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/holocaust_imagery.asp The Anti-Defamation League, Karen. It doesn't get any more authoritative and legitimate than that: Jews consider the use of Holocaust imagery in support of "animal rights" ideology to be absolutely ANTI-SEMITIC. How much Zyklon-B do you keep out behind the double-wide in Santa Fe, Karen? In your black heart, Karen, you are a death camp exterminator. |
Inappropriate comparisons ( typical racist spew from vegans...)
Karen Winter weakly tried to defend her loathsome moral
equivalence: [...] "We believe that raising awareness to the abusive treatment of animals is important. However, the issue should stand on its own merits, rather than rely on inappropriate comparisons that only serve to trivialize the suffering of the six million Jews and others who died at the hands of the Nazis." Lonnie J. Nasatir, Director of ADL's Greater Chicago/Upper Midwest Regional Office http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4767_62.htm You can **** and moan all you want, Karen, that you don't "mean" to trivialize the experiences of holocaust Jews and North American black slaves when you misappropriate their experiences and history in pursuit of your warped and perverted "animal rights" totalitarian agenda. I am telling you - THEY are telling you - that they consider your misuse to be a horrific, morally confused trivializing of their experiences and history. Shame, shame on you. |
More on inappropriate misuse ( typical racist spew from vegans...)
Karen Winter trivialized Jews and blacks:
[...] New York, NY, October 14, 2003…The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) continued its denunciation of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for its "Holocaust on Your Plate" project for trivializing the murder of six million Jews and called its appeal for approval by the Jewish community "outrageous, offensive and taking chutzpah to new heights." The PETA exhibit was unveiled in New York City's Duffy Square, the heart of the theater district. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4366_52.htm |
Inappropriate comparisons ( typical racist spew from vegans...)
"The self-described 'complete press sluts' at People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were forced recently to cease their reprehensible publicity campaign comparing animals to African American slaves. Like its offensive 'Holocaust on Your Plate' project, which equated chickens with victims of the Nazis, PETA's 'Animal Liberation' exhibit has been roundly condemned by newspaper editorial pages and civil rights leaders." http://www.activistcash.com/news_detail.cfm?hid=2877 |
Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
Once again Lief has tried to turn the argument into an ad hominem attack on me and on the Animal Rights movement. I do not intend to respond to that any more, because it is irrelevant to the actual issue. The issue is: the legal status which allows people to buy puppies or hamsters, even if they love them and treat them well, is the same legal status which allows commercial producers to create factory farms. As long as animals are property under the law, there will be no way to attack the root cause of the inhumane and immoral torture and slaughter they face in so many areas, and particularly in food production. The analogy is appropriate: just as human slavery is unjust because it treats beings with inherent worth as mere property, animal slavery -- the legal status of animals as chattels -- is unjust because it treats beings with inherent worth as property. The public can see it with regard to humans, and presenting the analogy can hopefully allow them to see it with regard to animals. It is the way moral progress is made. |
The deeply rooted racism of "ar" and "aras"
Karen Winter lied:
> > Once again Lief has tried to turn the argument into an ad hominem > attack on me and on the Animal Rights movement. No, Karen. I am informing you that your comparison of Jews and American black slaves to pigs and chickens is deeply offensive to today's Jews and blacks. It is; the legitimate and authoritative organizations and persons in those communities say it is time after time. > I do not intend to > respond to that any more, because it is irrelevant to the actual > issue. No, that's not it, Karen. It's very relevant, and it is indicative of the totality of your moral bankruptcy. > The issue is: the legal status which allows people to > buy puppies or hamsters, even if they love them and treat > them well, is the same legal status which allows commercial > producers to create factory farms. As long as animals are > property under the law, Domestic animals will always be property, Karen. It is a measure of your self-caused cultural isolation that you don't realize the high-water mark of silly movement has been reached, and the water is rapidly receding. You and the other "animal rights assholes" are long past your peak. The "movement" toward treating domestic animals as something other than property is rapidly diminishing. > The analogy is appropriate: just as human slavery is unjust > because it treats beings with inherent worth as mere property, > animal slavery -- the legal status of animals as chattels -- > is unjust because it treats beings with inherent worth as > property. The analogy is 100% INAPPROPRIATE, Karen, and is indicative both of your lack of touch with reality, and your stubborn refusal to accept that blacks and Jews find your comparison deeply offensive. It's revealing as well that you're equating the legal status of Jews and slaves, even though the Germans did not base their genocide against the Jews on a claim that the Jews had become property. I repeat the essential truth here, Karen: you are *objectifying* Jews and American blacks in order to exploit their historical experiences to advance a misanthropic, totalitarian cause. That is a racist thing to do. |
The deeply rooted racism of "ar" and "aras"
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> >you are equating the legal status of Jews and slaves, I'm not. I didn't even mention Jews. > even > though the Germans did not base their genocide against the Jews on a > claim that the Jews had become property. Indeed they didn't. That's why the status of Jews in Nazi Germany is *irrelevant* to my argument about the property status of animals. |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> > The "movement" toward treating domestic animals as > something other than property is rapidly diminishing. It's a matter of perception to a degree, but the evidence is, you are incorrect. Companion animals, certainly, are being seen less and less as property. I gave some examples of why this is so earlier. It's telling that even the anti-AR posters here, in general, do not argue that companion animals are *merely* property, but that, although animals are legally property, their "owners" nevertheless don't see them in that way, and don't treat them like property. As far as "food" animals are concerned, the public is beginning to see the issue, and it is becoming a common subject in the mainstream media. Because companion animals are more and more seen as members of the family, analogous to human members of the family, by a majority of companion animal guardians, it is easy to expand that perception to other animals trapped in the factory farm system. People who treat their dog or cat like their child look at the way a cow or pig is treated in a factory farm setting and easily extrapolate from the mental, emotional, and physical qualities of their dog to the similar qualities of a pig or cow. It then becomes impossible to justify treating their dog in one way and a pig or cow in another. "If you love animals called pets, why do you eat animals called dinner?" |
The deeply rooted racism of "ar" and "aras"
Karen Winter lied and blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > >you are equating the legal status of Jews and slaves, > > I'm not. I didn't even mention Jews. This time, you didn't explicitly mention the Jews. "Eternal Treblinka" and some lousy piece-of-shit book by Boria Sax, both of which you gushingly endorsed *before* having read either, do. You have in the past. "animal rights assholes", if they get around to making these foul, invidious comparisons, ALWAYS limit themselves to Jews and American blacks. They are objectifying these groups in order to exploit their historical experiences in pursuit of a misanthropic, totalitarian goal. THAT - the anti-human, totalitarian goal - is one of the reason most thoughtful people in those historically aggrieved groups object to your efforts as racist. They are right. > > > even > > though the Germans did not base their genocide against the Jews on a > > claim that the Jews had become property. > > Indeed they didn't. That's why the status of Jews in Nazi Germany > is *irrelevant* to my argument about the property status of animals. Your objection to the treatment of animals is that it is "like" the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. It is a horrific, monstrous comparison that trivializes the holocaust and disrespects the humanity of Jews. Deep shame on you. |
Buying animals :( was typical racist spew from vegans...)
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:08:52 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
> ><d@.> wrote in message .. . >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:51:20 GMT, Leif Erikson >> > wrote: >> >>>Glorfindel wrote: >>>> Dave wrote: >>>> >>>>> Glorfindel wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Dave wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. >>>>>>> Raising animals >>>>>>> for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I would argue this, for I do believe pet ownership is >>>>>> morally >>>>>> equivalent to slavery, >>>> >>>> >>>>> I disagree because in there is a major difference in >>>>> motivation and consequence. People generally buy pets >>>>> for companionship and treat them well. People who >>>>> buy slaves generally do so for selfish reasons so they >>>>> can live off the work of others. >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand your point, but I would respond with a "yes >>>> and no." First, you have distinguish between people who >>>> buy pets, and people who rescue or adopt companion animals >>>> from shelters or rescue groups, or take in a stray from >>>> the street. >>> >>>No. No distinction is necessary. It doesn't help to >>>explain anything. >>> >>> >>>> The mindset is very different. >>> >>>Not really. >>> >>> >>>> While rescue >>>> can go terribly wrong and turn into hoarding, in general >>>> rescuers or adopters do it for companionship and to benefit >>>> the animal. >>> >>>No different from people who own pets, >> >> Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. People who "own pets" >> don't necessarily try to provide their animals with decent >> lives. >> They want to own them. Some do care about it, while others >> like yourself never even give it any consideration at all. Some >> even let the pets they own starve to death, and many many >> are neglected and malnourished. Some people even think it's >> funny to see animals neglected or even mistreated. You could >> never understand, because you don't even think the issue is >> worthy of consideration. However, even though you can't >> understand I'll go ahead and point out anyway that some pet >> owners care about their animals and some don't. Some people >> who fight game fowl care about their birds and some don't. >> Some farmers care about their livestock and some don't, but >> even if they don't "care" about the animals farmers still must >> take adaquate care of them to get what they want out of them. > > > >> But you're not going to see people who go through the efforts >> of getting an animal through a rescue place, not care about >> whether or not life is of positive value to the animal they >> take >> in. You can't understand, but it's true regardless of your lack >> of ability to comprehend things like that. >================================= >PeTA rescues animals all the time. PeTA doesn't go through the efforts of getting an animal through a rescue place, and people who do go through them usually don't kill the animals they went through the effort to get just because they start to cost money. Your comparison is not one. >Then they con the rubes for >as much money as possible by plying on their sympathy. Then, >when the animals start actually costing PeTA money, they kill >them. They kill more than they place out. Agreed. They're full of shit. >Is that the kind of >comprehension you think Lief is lacking? No. I believe you knew that to begin with, so why did you bother to ask? >>>except the pet >>>owners aren't patting themselves on the back for it. >> >> You can't understand how life can have positive value for >> anything, much less for pets, much much less for livestock, >> much much much less can you understand why a person >> would consider it when they think about human influence on >> animals. The big question is: Since you apparently can't even >> understand it, why are you so opposed to seeing it given any >> consideration by people who can? What are you afraid might >> happen if more people deliberately tried to provide animals >> with lives of positive value? >====================== >Which people are those, Any people who would do it. >and which animals? Any animals. Goo is opposed to giving the animals' lives as much consideration as their deaths. So far it appears that you agree with him. If not, which animals' lives do you think should be given as much consideration as their deaths, and which do you think should not? >The same people that >raise a fuss over cute little kitty-cats give no second thought >to killing animals brutally and inhumanely for their usenet >entertainment... We all do, but that's not what we were talking about. |
Buying animals :( was typical racist spew from vegans...)
On 25 Jan 2006 16:22:36 -0800, "shrubkiller" > wrote:
>I see you still haven't provided any photographic evidence of the >killing of animals in crop harvests. If you can't understand how harvesting kills animals just from these pics: http://tinyurl.com/czo32 http://tinyurl.com/dqp4n http://tinyurl.com/9nqr6 you are just too ignorant and out of touch with reality to ever understand much of anything. In this shot we see the interest birds have in the animals that are killed, injured, and left exposed by the destruction of their environment: http://tinyurl.com/d756s Maybe you can finally begin to have some understanding and maybe not, but even if you're still amazingly unable to comprehend how harvesting kills animals, I suppose it still may be possible for you to get some clue how plowing does: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe http://tinyurl.com/9rzv6 Yes? No? Can you comprehend how poisonous chemichals kill animals in crop fields: http://tinyurl.com/78ahh http://tinyurl.com/bex3v http://tinyurl.com/cf6ga http://tinyurl.com/dpynt Can you grasp how any of it can kill??? |
The deeply rooted racism of "ar" and "aras"
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Karen Winter As I've told you, I am not Karen Winter. I take no responsibility for anything she may or may not have written in the past. |
The deeply rooted racism of "ar" and "aras"
Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > > Karen Winter > > As I've told you, I am not Karen Winter. I > take no responsibility for anything she may or may not > have written in the past. Yes, you are Karen Winter. This was established many weeks ago. Why do you lie about this, Karen? It's pointless. |
typical racist spew from vegans...
Leif Erikson wrote: > Dave wrote: > > Leif Erikson wrote: > > > Dave wrote: > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > ============================ > > > > > LOL By comparing chickens to Jews... > > > > > > > > She is not comparing chickens to Jews per se. She is > > > > comparing the treatment of chickens in factory farms > > > > today with the treatment of humans who happened to > > > > be Jewish in concentration camps. The argument would > > > > have been just the same whatever the race of people who > > > > had been sent to those camps. > > > > > > She is morally equating the treatment of chickens to the treatment of > > > Jews in Nazi Germany > > > > And all other people of whatever race who suffered similar misfortunes. > > One would hope - yet somehow, mysteriously, only Jews and American > blacks ever seem to be mentioned. I wonder why that is? Because these are the most well known examples. It is worth noting here that when Glorfindel made her slavery comparison she didn't mention anything about the slaves being black. That was Rick's imput. > > > and to black slaves in the American antebellum > > > south. > > > > And all other slaves of whatever race. > > See above, and think about why only Jews and black American slaves ever > seem to be brought up by the "aras" in their vile, trivializing and > bogus moral equivalence. See above. It wasn't Glorfindel who first bought up Jews or Black Americans in this thread. > > > > > Whenever this happens, members of those groups are always > > > aggrieved, and rightly so, for the false moral equivalence being > > > alleged by the "aras" ("animal rights assholes"). Jews and American > > > blacks quite reasonably feel that equating the treatment their > > > ancestors suffered to the treatment of animals both trivializes the > > > horrors of their past unjust treatment, and also in some way *does* > > > suggest that they are less than fully human. > > > > If they paid attention to the context > > Now you're telling members of these aggrieved groups that they're not > paying attention to what you think they should. How patronizing. Members of these groups who interpet the statements the way the statements are intended would realise that the statements are not racist. > > they would see that the point is > > not to trivialize the horrors of the past but to emphacize the horrors > > of the present. > > That's the commonly given, and wholly bullshit, explanation. But the > trivialization is real. The excuse-making and hand-waving and "no no > no, that's not what I meant..." ring hollow, because they *are* hollow. They are genuine. > There is no moral > > > > In making these comparisons Glorfindel > > Karen Winter. Her name is Karen Winter. I'll call her by the name she has chosen for herself. > > does not > > suggest that blacks or jews are less than fully human. > > Implicitly, that's exactly what she does. That is simply untrue. > > > The "aras" always hastily > > > and in their best PC protest voices insist that they aren't being > > > racist, > > > > They aren't. > > Yes, they are. They are objectifying these historically aggrieved > groups in order to EXPLOIT their experience for the "animal rights > assholes'" narrow political purpose. > > > > > but the aggrieved groups never really buy the denials, > > > > If I were black or a Jewish I would consider the above statement > > to be a slur on my intelligence. > > The slur on their intelligence is what YOU did, davie, when you said > they are too stupid to pay attention to the "context". I never made any such claim. > > I am not in any way casting aspersions on their intelligence by telling > you - davie and Karen Winter - that blacks and Jews are telling you > you're full of shit. And what qualifies you to act as their spokesperson? > > > > > and they > > > shouldn't. At the very least, the comparisons *do* trivialize what > > > Jews and blacks experienced. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hand waving noted... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It also displays their hatred > > > > > >> of people quite explicitly too... > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > > ====================== > > > > > I don't. Didn't you just see bpg posts with the implicit glee > > > > > that hunters were killing each other instead of animals? That > > > > > is/has been a typical vegan spew every hunting season.. > > > > > > > > That is not the example you just claimed demonstrated vegan > > > > hatred of people. The bpg posts you now refer to don't show > > > > that all vegans hate people just that some vegans hate some > > > > people. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> That you > > > > > >> >> can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot about you > > > > > >> >> too... > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery. > > > > > >> > Raising > > > > > >> > animals > > > > > >> > for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide. > > > > > >> ============================== > > > > > >> LOL I think that that is what I have been saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the part of what you have been saying that I can agree > > > > > > with. > > > > > > The idea that it is racist to make such analogies is absurd. > > > > > ================== > > > > > No, it is not previsly because they see animals and people as > > > > > interchangable. > > > > > > > > By the same token one would expect them to see different races > > > > of people as interchangable, which is of course the very antithesis > > > > of racism. > > > > > > > > > >> You should > > > > > >> tell that to the vegan LOONS. They comapre animals to slaves > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> death camps all the time making just such claims... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> How about the blond, blue-eyed British, > > > > > >> >> >> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack > > > > > >> >> >> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is > > > > > >> >> >> showing. > > > > > >> >> >> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to > > > > > >> >> >> the > > > > > >> >> >> legal status of animals: both are chattel property. > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> <snip> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > |
typical racist spew from vegans...
Dave wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > Dave wrote: > > > Leif Erikson wrote: > > > > Dave wrote: > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > > ============================ > > > > > > LOL By comparing chickens to Jews... > > > > > > > > > > She is not comparing chickens to Jews per se. She is > > > > > comparing the treatment of chickens in factory farms > > > > > today with the treatment of humans who happened to > > > > > be Jewish in concentration camps. The argument would > > > > > have been just the same whatever the race of people who > > > > > had been sent to those camps. > > > > > > > > She is morally equating the treatment of chickens to the treatment of > > > > Jews in Nazi Germany > > > > > > And all other people of whatever race who suffered similar misfortunes. > > > > One would hope - yet somehow, mysteriously, only Jews and American > > blacks ever seem to be mentioned. I wonder why that is? > > Because these are the most well known examples. They are the ONLY examples "animal rights assholes" in North America ever reference. > It is worth noting > here that when Glorfindel Karen Winter. Her name is Karen Winter, and she's a lifelong self-marginalized butch ******* living in Santa Fe, NM. > made her slavery comparison she didn't > mention anything about the slaves being black. *This* time. Previously, she has made the usual tiresome references to Jews and black American slaves. > That was Rick's imput. > > > > > and to black slaves in the American antebellum > > > > south. > > > > > > And all other slaves of whatever race. > > > > See above, and think about why only Jews and black American slaves ever > > seem to be brought up by the "aras" in their vile, trivializing and > > bogus moral equivalence. > > See above. See above. > It wasn't Glorfindel Karen Winter. > who first bought up Jews or Black > Americans in this thread. No, not in *this* thread. Previously, Karen has been the one to invoke, exploitatively, Jews and black Americans. Write "black Americans", not "Black Americans" - lower case 'b'. > > > > > > > Whenever this happens, members of those groups are always > > > > aggrieved, and rightly so, for the false moral equivalence being > > > > alleged by the "aras" ("animal rights assholes"). Jews and American > > > > blacks quite reasonably feel that equating the treatment their > > > > ancestors suffered to the treatment of animals both trivializes the > > > > horrors of their past unjust treatment, and also in some way *does* > > > > suggest that they are less than fully human. > > > > > > If they paid attention to the context > > > > Now you're telling members of these aggrieved groups that they're not > > paying attention to what you think they should. How patronizing. > > Members of these groups who interpet the statements the way the > statements are intended would realise that the statements are not > racist. You are saying that most members of those groups are stupid, because most members of those groups interpret the statements as racist, and they don't accept your frantic protests that you "didn't intend it that way" (nor do they accept your fatuous follow-up comment that some of your best friends are Jewish/black.) > > > they would see that the point is > > > not to trivialize the horrors of the past but to emphacize the horrors > > > of the present. > > > > That's the commonly given, and wholly bullshit, explanation. But the > > trivialization is real. The excuse-making and hand-waving and "no no > > no, that's not what I meant..." ring hollow, because they *are* hollow. > > They are genuine. They are hollow and bullshit. > > > There is no moral > > > > > > > In making these comparisons Glorfindel > > > > Karen Winter. Her name is Karen Winter. > > I'll call her by the name she has chosen for herself. Her name is Karen Winter. See above. > > > > does not > > > suggest that blacks or jews are less than fully human. > > > > Implicitly, that's exactly what she does. > > That is simply untrue. No, you're wrong. > > > > > The "aras" always hastily > > > > and in their best PC protest voices insist that they aren't being > > > > racist, > > > > > > They aren't. > > > > Yes, they are. They are objectifying these historically aggrieved > > groups in order to EXPLOIT their experience for the "animal rights > > assholes'" narrow political purpose. > > > > > > > but the aggrieved groups never really buy the denials, > > > > > > If I were black or a Jewish I would consider the above statement > > > to be a slur on my intelligence. > > > > The slur on their intelligence is what YOU did, davie, when you said > > they are too stupid to pay attention to the "context". > > I never made any such claim. Not explicitly. Nonetheless, you made it. Your facade is crumbling. I explained to you that blacks and Jews don't find your denials of racist intent to be convincing, and somehow you get out of that that *I* am making slurs on their intelligence. That was weak, davie - very weak indeed. The fact is, I am simply telling you a *FACT*: Jews and blacks DO NOT accept that you "didn't mean" anything racist in equating them morally with pigs and chickens; EVEN AFTER your denials, they still believe you are being racist. And, of course, you - and Karen Winter - are being deeply and offensively racist, because you are *exploiting* the dreadful historical experiences of Jews and blacks in order to advance a nasty political agenda. > > > > I am not in any way casting aspersions on their intelligence by telling > > you - davie and Karen Winter - that blacks and Jews are telling you > > you're full of shit. > > And what qualifies you to act as their spokesperson? I'm not acting as their spokesman. They speak perfectly well for themselves. I am merely telling you that your blithe dismissal of their fury is yet more evidence of your lack of touch with reality, as well as evidence of your racism. Blacks and Jews do believe that your fatuous, morally bankrupt attempt to shore up support for "ar" amounts to a racist trivialization of their experiences. They don't like it. They repeatedly say they don't like it, but you just dismiss it. > > > > > > > > and they > > > > shouldn't. At the very least, the comparisons *do* trivialize what > > > > Jews and blacks experienced. |
typical racist spew from vegans...
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > Leif Erikson wrote: >> Dave wrote: >> > Leif Erikson wrote: >> > > Dave wrote: >> > > > rick wrote: >> > > > > ============================ >> > > > > LOL By comparing chickens to Jews... >> > > > >> > > > She is not comparing chickens to Jews per se. She is >> > > > comparing the treatment of chickens in factory farms >> > > > today with the treatment of humans who happened to >> > > > be Jewish in concentration camps. The argument would >> > > > have been just the same whatever the race of people who >> > > > had been sent to those camps. >> > > >> > > She is morally equating the treatment of chickens to the >> > > treatment of >> > > Jews in Nazi Germany >> > >> > And all other people of whatever race who suffered similar >> > misfortunes. >> >> One would hope - yet somehow, mysteriously, only Jews and >> American >> blacks ever seem to be mentioned. I wonder why that is? > > Because these are the most well known examples. It is worth > noting > here that when Glorfindel made her slavery comparison she > didn't > mention anything about the slaves being black. That was Rick's > imput. =========================== No, it's the input of every vegan loon that has graced these newsgroups. Just read a little history of the group, and of AR organizations. That is always their comparison. Now that she has been called on her bigotry, she has to backpedal and spew even more nonsense... > >> > > and to black slaves in the American antebellum >> > > south. >> > >> > And all other slaves of whatever race. >> >> See above, and think about why only Jews and black American >> slaves ever >> seem to be brought up by the "aras" in their vile, >> trivializing and >> bogus moral equivalence. > > See above. It wasn't Glorfindel who first bought up Jews or > Black > Americans > in this thread. >> > >> > > Whenever this happens, members of those groups are always >> > > aggrieved, and rightly so, for the false moral equivalence >> > > being >> > > alleged by the "aras" ("animal rights assholes"). Jews >> > > and American >> > > blacks quite reasonably feel that equating the treatment >> > > their >> > > ancestors suffered to the treatment of animals both >> > > trivializes the >> > > horrors of their past unjust treatment, and also in some >> > > way *does* >> > > suggest that they are less than fully human. >> > >> > If they paid attention to the context >> >> Now you're telling members of these aggrieved groups that >> they're not >> paying attention to what you think they should. How >> patronizing. > > Members of these groups who interpet the statements the way the > statements are intended would realise that the statements are > not > racist. > >> > they would see that the point is >> > not to trivialize the horrors of the past but to emphacize >> > the horrors >> > of the present. >> >> That's the commonly given, and wholly bullshit, explanation. >> But the >> trivialization is real. The excuse-making and hand-waving and >> "no no >> no, that's not what I meant..." ring hollow, because they >> *are* hollow. > > They are genuine. > >> There is no moral >> >> >> > In making these comparisons Glorfindel >> >> Karen Winter. Her name is Karen Winter. > > I'll call her by the name she has chosen for herself. > >> > does not >> > suggest that blacks or jews are less than fully human. >> >> Implicitly, that's exactly what she does. > > That is simply untrue. > >> > > The "aras" always hastily >> > > and in their best PC protest voices insist that they >> > > aren't being >> > > racist, >> > >> > They aren't. >> >> Yes, they are. They are objectifying these historically >> aggrieved >> groups in order to EXPLOIT their experience for the "animal >> rights >> assholes'" narrow political purpose. >> > >> > > but the aggrieved groups never really buy the denials, >> > >> > If I were black or a Jewish I would consider the above >> > statement >> > to be a slur on my intelligence. >> >> The slur on their intelligence is what YOU did, davie, when >> you said >> they are too stupid to pay attention to the "context". > > I never made any such claim. >> >> I am not in any way casting aspersions on their intelligence >> by telling >> you - davie and Karen Winter - that blacks and Jews are >> telling you >> you're full of shit. > > And what qualifies you to act as their spokesperson? >> >> >> > > and they >> > > shouldn't. At the very least, the comparisons *do* >> > > trivialize what >> > > Jews and blacks experienced. >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > Hand waving noted... >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> It also displays their hatred >> > > > > >> of people quite explicitly too... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I disagree. >> > > > > ====================== >> > > > > I don't. Didn't you just see bpg posts with the >> > > > > implicit glee >> > > > > that hunters were killing each other instead of >> > > > > animals? That >> > > > > is/has been a typical vegan spew every hunting >> > > > > season.. >> > > > >> > > > That is not the example you just claimed demonstrated >> > > > vegan >> > > > hatred of people. The bpg posts you now refer to don't >> > > > show >> > > > that all vegans hate people just that some vegans hate >> > > > some >> > > > people. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >> That you >> > > > > >> >> can excuse this ideological nonsense says alot >> > > > > >> >> about you >> > > > > >> >> too... >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to >> > > > > >> > slavery. >> > > > > >> > Raising >> > > > > >> > animals >> > > > > >> > for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide. >> > > > > >> ============================== >> > > > > >> LOL I think that that is what I have been saying. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > It is the part of what you have been saying that I >> > > > > > can agree >> > > > > > with. >> > > > > > The idea that it is racist to make such analogies is >> > > > > > absurd. >> > > > > ================== >> > > > > No, it is not previsly because they see animals and >> > > > > people as >> > > > > interchangable. >> > > > >> > > > By the same token one would expect them to see different >> > > > races >> > > > of people as interchangable, which is of course the very >> > > > antithesis >> > > > of racism. >> > > > >> > > > > >> You should >> > > > > >> tell that to the vegan LOONS. They comapre animals >> > > > > >> to slaves >> > > > > >> and >> > > > > >> death camps all the time making just such claims... >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> How about the blond, blue-eyed British, >> > > > > >> >> >> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? >> > > > > >> >> >> Your lack >> > > > > >> >> >> of historical education ( not to mention >> > > > > >> >> >> grammar) is >> > > > > >> >> >> showing. >> > > > > >> >> >> It is the legal status of slaves which is >> > > > > >> >> >> analogous to >> > > > > >> >> >> the >> > > > > >> >> >> legal status of animals: both are chattel >> > > > > >> >> >> property. >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> <snip> >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > |
The Status of animals
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > > The "movement" toward treating domestic animals as >> something other than property is rapidly diminishing. > > It's a matter of perception to a degree, but the > evidence is, you are incorrect. Companion animals, > certainly, are being seen less and less as property. > I gave some examples of why this is so earlier. It's > telling that even the anti-AR posters here, in general, > do not argue that companion animals are *merely* > property, but that, although animals are legally property, > their "owners" nevertheless don't see them in that way, > and don't treat them like property. > > As far as "food" animals are concerned, the public is > beginning to see the issue, and it is becoming a common > subject in the mainstream media. Because companion > animals are more and more seen as members of the family, > analogous to human members of the family, by a majority > of companion animal guardians, it is easy to expand that > perception to other animals trapped in the factory farm > system. People who treat their dog or cat like their > child look at the way a cow or pig is treated in a > factory farm setting and easily extrapolate from the > mental, emotional, and physical qualities of their dog > to the similar qualities of a pig or cow. It then becomes > impossible to justify treating their dog in one way and > a pig or cow in another. > > "If you love animals called pets, why do you eat animals > called dinner?" ====================== And why do you kill them by the millions in very brutal, very inhumane ways, hypocrite? Just because you don't see their cute little brown eyes? > > > |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > > The "movement" toward treating domestic animals as > > something other than property is rapidly diminishing. > > It's a matter of perception to a degree, No, it isn't. > but the > evidence is, you are incorrect. The evidence is I am correct. > Companion animals, Pets. The nauseating politically correct term "companion animals" has not caught on, and will not. > certainly, are being seen less and less as property. Not true. A few isolated bastions of PC weirdness, e.g. San Francisco - it doesn't get weirder than Frisco - have made halting moves in this direction, but it stopped there. The Dubuque, IA department of animal control is not going to be referring to "companion animals" any time soon, if ever, and people there will continue to *own* their pets, not be referred to (nauseatingly) as their "guardians". I dare say, Karen, that that Santa Fe, NM department of animal control probably does not refer to pets as "companion animals", and undoubtedly *does* recognize that people own their pets, and may buy and sell them. > I gave some examples of why this is so earlier. It's > telling that even the anti-AR posters here, in general, > do not argue that companion animals Pets. Speak plain English, Karen. > are *merely* > property, but that, although animals are legally property, > their "owners" nevertheless don't see them in that way, > and don't treat them like property. Pet owners do see their pets as property. They don't treat them the same way they would treat a stepladder, but that doesn't change the fact that pet owners regard their pets as property. |
Buying animals :( was typical racist spew from vegans...)
Karen Winter covered her ears and shrieked:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > > > No, you *hope* it will, and you are confusing your wishes with what is > > likely. > > No, that would be you. No, Karen - that would be you. > > No one can know for certain what will happen in the future, One can reliably say what will and won't happen in the near term future, and the near term future does not look to include the nauseating term "companion animals", nor "pet guardianship". |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> > I dare say, > that that Santa Fe, NM department of animal control probably does not > refer to pets as "companion animals", I just checked the Santa Fe SPCA website, and they do indeed refer to companion animals. It is the term of choice among rescue groups. <snip> |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > > I dare say, Karen I wrote "I dare say, Karen.." Leave it in. > > that that Santa Fe, NM department of animal control probably does not > > refer to pets as "companion animals", > > I just checked the Santa Fe SPCA website, and they do indeed refer > to companion animals. It is the term of choice among rescue groups. It's the preferred term - not "term of choice"; more trendy-speak - among people in far-left bastions like Santa Fe, Berkeley and Frisco. It is not catching on with the general population, and there's no indication it will. Regardless of how the SPCA in trendy, effete Santa Fe refers to pets, the fact remains the pets are property, and nothing is likely to change that. |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> > Regardless of how the SPCA in trendy, effete Santa Fe refers to pets, And after a quick Google, I see the Dubuque Humane Society notes that it was "incorporated in 1901 to look after horses and children, as well as *companion animals*." We also have the Companion Animal Network, providing Companion Animal Placement Assistance in trendy, effete Marion, IA. |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter typically lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > > Regardless of how the SPCA in trendy, effete Santa Fe refers to pets, > > And after a quick Google, I see the Dubuque Humane Society notes > that it was "incorporated in 1901 to look after horses and children, > as well as *companion animals*." No, it doesn't say that, Karen, you liar. That statement is on a page entitled (this is too ****ing funny!) "PetsFortheElderly.org". Ha ha ha ha ha! Read it and weep, you lying bitch: http://petsfortheelderly.org/Letters.htm Here's what the Dubuque humane society "about us / history" page says: In 2001 the Dubuque Regional Humane Society celebrated 100 years of reaching out to residents of the tri-state community (Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin) appealing to their sense of compassion, while serving as an advocate for the humane treatment of animals. When it first began in 1901, the Dubuque Benevolent and Humane Society worked to protect the rights of animals, primarily horses, as well as children. In this era, government agencies that protected child welfare did not exist and horses were forced to do the work of today's tractors, trucks and cars. There had been laws against cruelty and abuse on the books for decades, but they were not enforced. Most people felt that how a person dealt with their children and animals was their own personal business, no matter how brutal. Not unlike today, too often people just did not want to get involved. In 1877, things began to change nationally with the formation of the American Humane Association. Slowly, the movement gathered momentum. "Dubuque needs a society of this kind very badly...for the protection of the dumb brutes and the punishment of the human brutes!" an article read in the Dubuque Daily Herald on February 24, 1882. And so, in February 1901, after years of planning, a group of volunteers drew up bylaws and formed a local humane society. On April 11, 1901, the first official meeting of the Dubuque Benevolent and Humane Society was held at the Second National Bank in downtown Dubuque. Membership numbered about 50. An office was set up in what is now known as the Fischer Building. Money was raised through annual dues of $1 - $10, with a lifetime membership costing $25. http://www.dbqhumane.org/History.html As always, Karen, you were sloppy. The words "companion animals" do appear on the page, once (in the society's own words), but the word "pet" appears a good half a dozen times. The director, Jane McCall, apparently has been contaminated with PC language. |
The Status of animals
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 and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote: > Nobody likes me because I **** my dead grandmother up the ass. This Leif Erikson is one sick mother, oops and grandmother ****er :) |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
> The words "companion animals" do appear on the page, Yes, they do. |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter sleazily and unethically edited in order to mislead:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > > The words "companion animals" do appear on the page, > > Yes, they do. They appear *once* (in the society's own words; once again when they give a link to some other page), but the word "pet" appears a good half a dozen times, and the word "pet" or "pets" appears all over the society's home page, and "companion animal" doesn't appear on the home page even once. Conclusion: in general, the humane society of Dubuque refers to pets as pets. They use good English. You should emulate them, Karen. |
The Status of animals
Helpfully reformatted from Google Groups broken
formatting... Karen Winter typically lied: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > > Regardless of how the SPCA in trendy, effete Santa Fe refers to pets, > > And after a quick Google, I see the Dubuque Humane Society notes > that it was "incorporated in 1901 to look after horses and children, > as well as *companion animals*." No, it doesn't say that, Karen, you liar. That statement is on a page entitled (this is too ****ing funny!) "PetsFortheElderly.org". Ha ha ha ha ha! Read it and weep, you lying bitch: http://petsfortheelderly.org/Letters.htm Here's what the Dubuque humane society "about us / history" page says: In 2001 the Dubuque Regional Humane Society celebrated 100 years of reaching out to residents of the tri-state community (Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin) appealing to their sense of compassion, while serving as an advocate for the humane treatment of animals. When it first began in 1901, the Dubuque Benevolent and Humane Society worked to protect the rights of animals, primarily horses, as well as children. In this era, government agencies that protected child welfare did not exist and horses were forced to do the work of today's tractors, trucks and cars. There had been laws against cruelty and abuse on the books for decades, but they were not enforced. Most people felt that how a person dealt with their children and animals was their own personal business, no matter how brutal. Not unlike today, too often people just did not want to get involved. In 1877, things began to change nationally with the formation of the American Humane Association. Slowly, the movement gathered momentum. "Dubuque needs a society of this kind very badly...for the protection of the dumb brutes and the punishment of the human brutes!" an article read in the Dubuque Daily Herald on February 24, 1882. And so, in February 1901, after years of planning, a group of volunteers drew up bylaws and formed a local humane society. On April 11, 1901, the first official meeting of the Dubuque Benevolent and Humane Society was held at the Second National Bank in downtown Dubuque. Membership numbered about 50. An office was set up in what is now known as the Fischer Building. Money was raised through annual dues of $1 - $10, with a lifetime membership costing $25. http://www.dbqhumane.org/History.html As always, Karen, you were sloppy. The words "companion animals" do appear on the page, once (in the society's own words), but the word "pet" appears a good half a dozen times. The director, Jane McCall, apparently has been contaminated with PC language. |
These are Leif Erikson's reasons for eating shit
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 and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote: > Nobody likes me because I **** my dead grandmother up the ass. |
Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
Glorfindel wrote:
> The issue is: the legal status which allows people to A colon only follows "is" if the verb is intransitive. which -> that > buy puppies or hamsters, even if they love them and treat > them well, is the same legal status which allows commercial which -> that > producers to create factory farms. As long as animals are > property under the law, there will be no way to attack the root > cause of the inhumane and immoral torture and slaughter > they face in so many areas, and particularly in food production. As animals are not human, their treatment cannot be humane unless someone's out of one's mind. Someone would take it out of literality. What torture? Are lions, sharks, and cats immoral because they harm and kill other animals, even humans, for food? Some even "play with" or torture their prey before it dies, for their amusement. Are they "evil", or naturally dumb, greedy, angry, and|or uncouth? Do humans hunt and kill other animals better than other animals? Why aren't you against the abuse of animals by the millions of other animals? > The analogy is appropriate: just as human slavery is unjust > because it treats beings with inherent worth as mere property, > animal slavery -- the legal status of animals as chattels -- > is unjust because it treats beings with inherent worth as > property. The public can see it with regard to humans, and > presenting the analogy can hopefully allow them to see it with > regard to animals. It is the way moral progress is made. Anyone can and will own what one can and will. The world doesn't give a damn, and morality is a delusion. Men can own wihts and worts, so they do. The wihts have a choice whether or not to own others, such as men, but they oftenly cannot own men if they so choose ever since men made weapons, shields, nets, and traps. (Neanderthal wives wove nets, and they and the children would hunt wihts together with them and clubs, sometimes without the wers' help.) "companion animals" isn't even English. I don't think there's such a bunch as COMPANIONANIMALA. You show well that PETA is a bunch of retardarians who can't back up anything they believe, and are liars who lige. (lige, liges, liged, ligen, lyging, a'lyging--that's how to spell them--not lie, lies, lied, lied, lying, lying.) I would hand "furry friends" if not pets. They're not "beasts of burden" that slaves are (Hmm, is saying of slaves a slur against Slavs?); and if they wanted to run away, they would, unlike a TV. Lief shouldn't put down misanthropism. I hold it truly dear to my heart, as folks are dolts, cretins, fools, scum. People are retards, and should be haten for what they are. If you want ethic progress, you would want, as I do, to nuke (neutron bomb--fetch their goods and buildings afterward) Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Guinea, China, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, and Colombia. Did I miss any states? -Aut |
Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote: Karen Winter. Her name is Karen Winter. > >>The issue is: the legal status which allows people to > > > A colon only follows "is" if the verb is intransitive. > which -> that Right. > > >>buy puppies or hamsters, even if they love them and treat >>them well, is the same legal status which allows commercial > > which -> that Right again. I've given up on that one, though, at least as far as correcting others. I always liked The Economist's succinct way of clarifying this: "'that' defines, 'which' informs." Or, paraphrasing: "This is the usenet post that I wrote, but this usenet post, which I wrote, is terrible" Karen Winter (aka 'rat', 'cynomis', 'meadowlark', 'glorfindel') >>producers to create factory farms. As long as animals are >>property under the law, there will be no way to attack the root >>cause of the inhumane and immoral torture and slaughter >>they face in so many areas, and particularly in food production. > > > As animals are not human, their treatment cannot be humane unless > someone's out of one's mind. Someone would take it out of literality. > > What torture? Are lions, sharks, and cats immoral because they harm > and kill other animals, even humans, for food? Some even "play with" > or torture their prey before it dies, for their amusement. Are they > "evil", or naturally dumb, greedy, angry, and|or uncouth? Do humans > hunt and kill other animals better than other animals? Why aren't you > against the abuse of animals by the millions of other animals? Now you've done it! Karen, ever the diligent student of phony ethical distinctions, has a ready answer for this: sharts, lions and other predatory animals aren't moral agents; they're moral patients, and can't be held to the same standard. Karen contorts herself into knots to try to show that "ar" isn't "speciesist" (Karen and other identity-politics far left extremists just *love* to analyze things in terms of "-isms"), but then she simply can't address the fact that telling humans they have a moral obligation not to eat animals, based on something that is unique to their species, is inherently and outrageously speciesist. >>The analogy is appropriate: just as human slavery is unjust >>because it treats beings with inherent worth as mere property, >>animal slavery -- the legal status of animals as chattels -- >>is unjust because it treats beings with inherent worth as >>property. The public can see it with regard to humans, and >>presenting the analogy can hopefully allow them to see it with >>regard to animals. It is the way moral progress is made. > > > Anyone can and will own what one can and will. The world doesn't give > a damn, and morality is a delusion. I don't think it's a delusion; I think humans "evolved" morality as a survival strategy. Karen is in an unenviable position: she wants to believe in an *objective*, universal ethics, but she needs to rely on the same flawed reasoning as those who posit an ethics at variance to her own. > Men can own wihts and worts, so > they do. The wihts have a choice whether or not to own others, such as > men, but they oftenly cannot own men if they so choose ever since men > made weapons, shields, nets, and traps. (Neanderthal wives wove nets, > and they and the children would hunt wihts together with them and > clubs, sometimes without the wers' help.) > > "companion animals" isn't even English. As I always say, the words are English, but it isn't English. It's pure PC cant; an expression of bullshit dogma. > I don't think there's such a > bunch as COMPANIONANIMALA. You show well that PETA is a bunch of > retardarians who can't back up anything they believe, and are liars who > lige. (lige, liges, liged, ligen, lyging, a'lyging--that's how to > spell them--not lie, lies, lied, lied, lying, lying.) I would hand > "furry friends" if not pets. They're not "beasts of burden" that > slaves are (Hmm, is saying of slaves a slur against Slavs?); and if > they wanted to run away, they would, unlike a TV. > > Lief shouldn't put down misanthropism. I hold it truly dear to my > heart, as folks are dolts, cretins, fools, scum. People are retards, > and should be haten for what they are. If you want ethic progress, you > would want, as I do, to nuke (neutron bomb--fetch their goods and > buildings afterward) Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New > Guinea, China, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, and > Colombia. Did I miss any states? > > -Aut > |
Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> > Are lions, sharks, and cats immoral because they harm >> and kill other animals, even humans, for food? Some even "play with" >> or torture their prey before it dies, for their amusement. Are they >> "evil", or naturally dumb, greedy, angry, and|or uncouth? Do humans >> hunt and kill other animals better than other animals? Why aren't you >> against the abuse of animals by the millions of other animals? > Now you've done it! Glorfindel...has a ready answer for this: > sharks, lions and other predatory animals aren't moral agents; > they're moral patients, and can't be held to the same standard. Very good, Lief. I see you're learning. <snip> > telling humans they have a moral obligation not to > eat animals, based on something that is unique to their species, is > inherently and outrageously speciesist. Speciesism is judging animals on the basis of *irrelevant* qualities. A status as a moral agent is not an irrelevant quality to judge moral/ethical actions. <snip> >> "companion animals" isn't even English. It certainly isn't any other language. It refers to 1)animals (non-human) who have a status primarily as 2)companions to humans. It's a standard construction in English, like "fence post" or "delivery wagon" or "course textbook" and so on. <snip> |
Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
Karen Winter, inadvertently confirming that she *is* Karen Winter,
blabbered: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > > Are lions, sharks, and cats immoral because they harm > >> and kill other animals, even humans, for food? Some even "play with" > >> or torture their prey before it dies, for their amusement. Are they > >> "evil", or naturally dumb, greedy, angry, and|or uncouth? Do humans > >> hunt and kill other animals better than other animals? Why aren't you > >> against the abuse of animals by the millions of other animals? > > > Now you've done it! Glorfindel...has a ready answer for this: > > sharks, lions and other predatory animals aren't moral agents; > > they're moral patients, and can't be held to the same standard. > > Very good, Lief. I see you're learning. Leif, you dummy. Anyway, your distinction is speciesist to the core. Resto Karen contorts herself into knots to try to show that "ar" isn't "speciesist" (Karen and other identity-politics far left extremists just *love* to analyze things in terms of "-isms"), but then she simply can't address the fact that telling humans they have a moral obligation not to eat animals, based on something that is unique to their species, is inherently and outrageously speciesist. "ar" is shot through and through with speciesism, Karen. > <snip> > > > telling humans they have a moral obligation not to > > eat animals, based on something that is unique to their species, is > > inherently and outrageously speciesist. > > Speciesism is judging animals on the basis of *irrelevant* > qualities. ipse dixit (and false) > A status as a moral agent is not an irrelevant > quality to judge moral/ethical actions. Your finding that one with the ability to behave as a moral agent *must* so behave in pursuit of your agenda is speciesist, Karen. > >> "companion animals" isn't even English. > > It certainly isn't any other language. It refers to It refers to pets, Karen - "pets", a perfectly serviceable and well-known English word. One should just say and write "pets", rather than your $2 loathsome attempt at sounding sophisticated. "companions animals" [vomit] is politically correct bullshit/newspeak. Don't use it. |
Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> > "ar" is shot through and through with speciesism, Glorfindel. Ipse dixit, and false. >><snip> >>>telling humans they have a moral obligation not to >>>eat animals, based on something that is unique to their species, is >>>inherently and outrageously speciesist. >>Speciesism is judging animals on the basis of *irrelevant* >>qualities. > ipse dixit (and false) Neither. It is the definition of the term as given by its originator, and accepted by those who have used it since in the AR/animal welfare movement. <snip> > Your finding that one with the ability to behave as a moral agent > *must* so behave in pursuit of your agenda is speciesist, Glorfindel. First, I never said that, and second, even if I had, it would not be a speciesist comment. >>>>"companion animals" .... refers to animals who are companions (of humans). |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter