FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   If I Had $40 Million (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/79110-if-i-had-40-a.html)

Leif Erikson[_2_] 30-01-2006 10:59 PM

Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
 
Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > "ar" is shot through and through with speciesism, Glorfindel.


I wrote "Karen": "'ar' is shot through and through with speciesism,
Karen." Leave it alone.


>
> Ipse dixit, and false.


No, true. I've demonstrated in what way "ar" is contaminated with
speciesism. You haven't refuted it; a denial is not a refutation,
Karen.


> >>>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.


Both.

> It is the definition of the term as given by its
> originator,


Who was the originator of the term "speciesism", Karen?


> > Your finding that one with the ability to behave as a moral agent
> > *must* so behave in pursuit of your agenda is speciesist, Karen.

>
> First, I never said that,


It is absolutely implied by what you do say.


> >>>>"companion animals"

>
> ... refers to


Pets. It refers to pets, Karen.


Glorfindel 31-01-2006 02:03 AM

Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
 
Leif Erikson wrote:

>><snip>


>>>"ar" is shot through and through with speciesism, Glorfindel.


>>Ipse dixit, and false.

>
> No, true. I've demonstrated


You've demonstrated absolutely nothing.


>>>>>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.


>> It is the definition of the term as given by its
>>originator,


> Who was the originator of the term "speciesism", Glorfindel?


"The term speciesism was first coined by Richard Ryder in 1970.
In 1985 The _Oxford English Dictionary_ defined speciesism as
'discrimination against or exploitation of certain animal species
by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority."
This definition marked the official acceptance of 'speciesism'
into the language. Peter Singer did much to establish its use."

_Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare_ p. 320


The idea that distinctions between both individual members of a
species and species in general *based on relevant criteria, but
not simply on species membership* pervades Singer's _Animal
Liberation_ On p. 21 of the second edition, Singer writes:

"Normally this will mean that if we have to choose between the
life of a human being and the life of another animal we should
choose to save the life of the human; but there may be special
cases in which the reverse holds true, because the human being
in question does not have the capacities of a normal human being.
This view is not speciesist, although it may appear to be at
first glance. The preference, in normal cases, for saving a
human life over the life of an animal when a choice *has* to be
made is a preference based on the characteristics that normal
humans have, and not on the mere fact that they are members of
our own species. This is why when we consider members of our
own species who lack the characteristics of normal humans we
can no longer say that their lives are always to be preferred
to those of other animals."

<snip>

>>>>>>"companion animals"


>>... refers to


animals who are primarily companions of humans

Leif Erikson[_3_] 31-01-2006 02:16 AM

Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
 
Karen Winter unethically snipped and lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >><snip>

>
> >>>"ar" is shot through and through with speciesism, Karen.

>
> >>Ipse dixit, and false.

> >
> > No, true. I've demonstrated in what way "ar" is contaminated with
> >speciesism. You haven't refuted it; a denial is not a refutation,
> >Karen.

>
> You've demonstrated absolutely nothing.


I've demonstrated in what way "ar" is contaminated with
speciesism. You haven't refuted it; a denial is not a refutation,
Karen.



>
>
> >>>>>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.

>
> >> It is the definition of the term as given by its
> >>originator,

>
> > Who was the originator of the term "speciesism", Glorfindel?

>
> "The term speciesism was first coined by Richard Ryder in 1970.
> In 1985 The _Oxford English Dictionary_ defined speciesism as
> 'discrimination against or exploitation of certain animal species
> by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority."
> This definition marked the official acceptance of 'speciesism'
> into the language. Peter Singer did much to establish its use."
>
> _Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare_ p. 320
>
>
> The idea that distinctions between both individual members of a
> species and species in general *based on relevant criteria, but
> not simply on species membership* pervades Singer's _Animal
> Liberation_ On p. 21 of the second edition, Singer writes:


Singer wants to impose a burden on humans merely based on their
membership in a species. This is clear.

"Companion animal" refers to pets. Say and write "pets". Don't use
politically correct gobbledygook, Karen.


Glorfindel 31-01-2006 04:51 AM

Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
 
Leif Erikson wrote:

....

Glorfindel wrote:

>>The idea that distinctions between both individual members of a
>>species and species in general *based on relevant criteria, but
>>not simply on species membership* pervades Singer's _Animal
>>Liberation_ On p. 21 of the second edition, Singer writes:


You sniped the quote which demonstrated my point. But then
I'm not surprised. Would you actually respond it Singer's
words if I posted them again? Probably not; you know you have
no response, which is why you snipped the quote.

> Singer wants to impose a burden on humans merely based on their
> membership in a species. This is clear.


No, the quote you snipped made it obvious nothing he was
saying was based on membership in a species. And the
quote I gave did not describe a *burden* placed on normal
adult humans, but an advantage for those with specific
capabilities, an advantage not granted humans without those
capabilities. That is as clear a refutation of your claim
as is possible to find.

No wonder you felt you had to remove it.


> "Companion animal" refers to


animals who are primarily companions for humans.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 31-01-2006 07:42 AM

Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
 
What the **** are you doing here, Karen, you
shit-hearted liar?

"Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday. After prayer
and thought, I feel honesty compels me
to admit publicly that I have no answer
to the long argument here in recent weeks.
I cannot defend my belief that my
involvement in collateral deaths is less
unethical than others' choices. I hereby
admit I am wrong, and I feel my only
honorable course is to withdraw from this
newsgroup. To leave without admitting my
lack of a defense for my actions and
beliefs would be dishonest and cowardly."
Karen Winter ('glordindel', 'cynomis', et al.)
27 Feb. 2001

That was nearly FIVE years ago, Karen. Nothing has
changed - you *still* lack any defense for your actions
and beliefs.


Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Karen Winter lied:
>
>>> The idea that distinctions between both individual members of a
>>> species and species in general *based on relevant criteria, but
>>> not simply on species membership* pervades Singer's _Animal
>>> Liberation_ On p. 21 of the second edition, Singer writes:

>
>
> You sniped


I didn't snipe anything.

The stuff I snipped was irrelevant PC crap. Ryder and
Singer cannot defend their belief, which they assert as
fact, that speciesism is "bad". *Every* species
discriminates in favor of its own kind, and therefore
at least implicitly - but usually explicitly - against
all other species. Ryder and Singer *CANNOT* say why
humans ought not, *except* that these two ****ing
half-wit marxists see such a bizarre proposition as
their path to fame.


>> Singer wants to impose a burden on humans merely based on their
>> membership in a species. This is clear.

>
>
> No,


Yes.


>> "Companion animal" refers to

>
>
> animals who are


Pets. It refers to animals who are pets, Karen. Say
and write "pets", Karen.

How's Sylvia, Karen? Are you telling her about your
ham-handed half-assed attempts here? Is she starting
to cower, to curl up into a little FAS ball the way she
did before?

[Sylvia] reacts badly to bullying due to childhood
experiences, and Leif's evil bullying here brings up
memories which frighten and disturb her. She is
more vulnerable than I am, because I have been
dealing with Leif for some years on TPA, and I know
exactly what he is.
...
When [Sylvia] told you on this board about Leif's
threats, it was a panicked reaction to a very real
threat [*bullshit], and [Sylvia] was turning to
people she considers her friends, people she felt
she could talk to AS friends, because you know her.
...
Yes, Swan was frightened and angry, and reacted in
fear. Swan is not Sylvia -- Swan is a persona. But
Sylvia is a real person, and your friend, and she is
being hurt by this creep.

Remember, Karen? Sure you do. It's damned ****ing
certain Sylvia does. You'd going to blow it, Karen.
You're going to blurt something out and put Sylvia into
a real state this time.

Glorfindel 31-01-2006 04:31 PM

Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
 


Yes, once you know you are cornered and completely wrong,
you resort to attempts to divert the discussion and
irrelevant personal attacks (not even on me, since I'm
not Karen Winter)

Leif Erikson wrote:

<snip>

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>> The idea of distinctions between both individual members of a
>>>> species and species in general *based on relevant criteria, but
>>>> not simply on species membership* pervades Singer's _Animal
>>>> Liberation_ On p. 21 of the second edition, Singer writes:


>> You sniped


> I didn't snipe...


Oh, you snipe all the time, all the time. Don't try to deny it. :)

> The stuff I snipped was irrelevant PC crap.


It demonstrated that the person who popularized the term
"speciesism" did not define it as you are trying to claim he
did, and that your definition is incorrect as the term is used
in the AR/animal welfare movement. As I wrote above.

> Ryder and Singer cannot
> defend their belief, which they assert as fact, that speciesism is
> "bad".


They defend it quite well, but that is not the issue here.

The issue is that what you are claiming about the use of
the term "speciesism" in the Animal Liberation/
Rights movement is incorrect, and my statement above is
correct. Your bluster here is just an attempt at a diversion.
It doesn't work.

<snip>

Autymn D. C. 01-02-2006 07:20 AM

Irrelevance of racism or lack thereof
 
Glorfindel wrote:
> 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.


Humans invented ethics (laws, rules) for survival; morals (ways) are
for niceness only. As many animals are omnivores, they still choose to
eat other animals even if they don't need to. As many animals are
social, they are shrewd (Hmm, that's from "shrew", or "villain", meant
for rats and women.) to know what their own and else feel. Lately I
heard on the news that after some guy had a seizure in a field, one of
his dogs felt that he was cold and lay on him; the other took the flash
and waved it (in the mouth?) until help came. So some animals are
moral agents.

> 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.


why irrelevant qualities only?

> >> "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.


It's almost French. I mean English-English, rather than Latin-English.
That's why I wrote "wives and wers" instead of "females and males".
"breadmately wihts" or "ferely wihts" would fit, but that's dumb.

-Aut


Autymn D. C. 01-02-2006 07:23 AM

If I Had $40 Million
 
ant and dec wrote:
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.


I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.


Dave[_2_] 01-02-2006 07:28 PM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> 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.


Her usenet identity is Glorfindel and unlike you she is not
a foul mouthed bullying shitbag.
>
> > made her slavery comparison she didn't
> > mention anything about the slaves being black.

>
> *This* time.


It was what she wrote *this* time that I am defending against
the unjustified label "racist spew", not what she allegedly
wrote some time in the past.

> 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,


I am saying nothing of the kind. I am saying that members of these
groups who interpret such statements as racist are misinterpreting
them. I'm not saying that they are stupid and I'm not saying they are
representative of their group.

> 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.)


You are not qualified to act as their spokesperson.

> > > > 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.


At least she only has one usenet identity, Mr Mazilch.
> >
> > > > 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.


SOME blacks and SOME Jews.

> 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;


I am not equating or defending any attempt to equate specific groups
of people with animals and you know it.

> 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.


Neither Black nor Jewish people have any cause to be especially
offended by the arguments Glorfindel has been presenting. If they
are offended it is due to a misunderstanding rather than racist intent.


> > >
> > >
> > > > > and they
> > > > > shouldn't. At the very least, the comparisons *do* trivialize what
> > > > > Jews and blacks experienced.



Dave[_2_] 01-02-2006 08:00 PM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 

Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Her statements are certainly not racist or bigotted and IMO they
> > are not demeaning to people either. They could perhaps be
> > described as melodramatic.

>
> Yes, such statements do seem melodramatic in cold print. It is
> different if one can imagine what it would feel like physically
> and emotionally to be in the same situation, or can imagine a
> loved companion dog or cat in the same situation. I won't go into
> lurid details, because I'm fairly sure you know exactly what goes
> on in factory farming. Obviously, every species and each individual
> is different, but pain is pain and sickness is sickness, and
> boredom is boredom.


I don't have the expertise to get into a debate about how much
animals are aware of such things. Other mammals and
birds have similar brain structures and it seems reasonable
to assume they percieve such things in a similar manner.
"lower" animals react to stimuli in ways that are indicative of
pain, fear, etc. and the evolutionary usefulness of such emotions
is also highly suggestive.

However a dog pampered by its owner undoubtedly feels quite
unlike a slave forced to work for his master and although the
legal status is about the same making comparisons between
the two seems to me a little melodramatic.
>
> <snip>



ant and dec 01-02-2006 11:12 PM

If I Had $40 Million
 
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

>
> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.
>


> ant and dec wrote:
>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

>
> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.
>

You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

Glorfindel 01-02-2006 11:57 PM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 
Dave wrote:

<snip>


> I don't have the expertise to get into a debate about how much
> animals are aware of such things. Other mammals and
> birds have similar brain structures and it seems reasonable
> to assume they percieve such things in a similar manner.
> "lower" animals react to stimuli in ways that are indicative of
> pain, fear, etc. and the evolutionary usefulness of such emotions
> is also highly suggestive.


> However a dog pampered by its owner undoubtedly feels quite
> unlike a slave forced to work for his master and although the
> legal status is about the same making comparisons between
> the two seems to me a little melodramatic.


I understand and respect your point of view, and you are undoubtedly
correct that a dog pampered by his owner does not feel like a slave
forced to work for his master.

I would suggest two things, however. First, that even the best
treated companion dog has many of his natural behaviors frustrated
by the requirements of living with humans, especially in a house.
There are compensations, and the dog probably is reasonably content,
but he still has most of his life modified by human control. He
can't even pee when and where he wants to.

Second, any being who is legally property is at the mercy of his
owner, and being pampered or abused, short of severe violations
of welfare laws, is entirely at the discretion of the owner. This
situation does not seem to me to recognize the inherent worth of
the owned animal.



rick 02-02-2006 12:31 AM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> I don't have the expertise to get into a debate about how much
>> animals are aware of such things. Other mammals and
>> birds have similar brain structures and it seems reasonable
>> to assume they percieve such things in a similar manner.
>> "lower" animals react to stimuli in ways that are indicative
>> of
>> pain, fear, etc. and the evolutionary usefulness of such
>> emotions
>> is also highly suggestive.

>
>> However a dog pampered by its owner undoubtedly feels quite
>> unlike a slave forced to work for his master and although the
>> legal status is about the same making comparisons between
>> the two seems to me a little melodramatic.

>
> I understand and respect your point of view, and you are
> undoubtedly
> correct that a dog pampered by his owner does not feel like a
> slave
> forced to work for his master.
>
> I would suggest two things, however. First, that even the best
> treated companion dog has many of his natural behaviors
> frustrated
> by the requirements of living with humans, especially in a
> house.
> There are compensations, and the dog probably is reasonably
> content,
> but he still has most of his life modified by human control.
> He
> can't even pee when and where he wants to.
>
> Second, any being who is legally property is at the mercy of
> his
> owner, and being pampered or abused, short of severe violations
> of welfare laws, is entirely at the discretion of the owner.
> This
> situation does not seem to me to recognize the inherent worth
> of
> the owned animal.

==========================
So, this is how you convince yourself that your killing animals
brutally and inhumanely is OK just because you don't *own* them.
Quite abit of twisting there hypocrite. Animals have NO rights,
and each of your inane posts prove that *you* know they don't and
that you do nothing to change that fact. What happened to the
*worth* of those animals, hypocrite?



>
>




Dave[_2_] 02-02-2006 03:06 AM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 

Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > I don't have the expertise to get into a debate about how much
> > animals are aware of such things. Other mammals and
> > birds have similar brain structures and it seems reasonable
> > to assume they percieve such things in a similar manner.
> > "lower" animals react to stimuli in ways that are indicative of
> > pain, fear, etc. and the evolutionary usefulness of such emotions
> > is also highly suggestive.

>
> > However a dog pampered by its owner undoubtedly feels quite
> > unlike a slave forced to work for his master and although the
> > legal status is about the same making comparisons between
> > the two seems to me a little melodramatic.

>
> I understand and respect your point of view,


Likewise.

> and you are undoubtedly
> correct that a dog pampered by his owner does not feel like a slave
> forced to work for his master.
>
> I would suggest two things, however. First, that even the best
> treated companion dog has many of his natural behaviors frustrated
> by the requirements of living with humans, especially in a house.
> There are compensations, and the dog probably is reasonably content,
> but he still has most of his life modified by human control. He
> can't even pee when and where he wants to.


The important consideration is whether the dog is content, not whether
his life is modified by human control.

> Second, any being who is legally property is at the mercy of his
> owner, and being pampered or abused, short of severe violations
> of welfare laws, is entirely at the discretion of the owner.


True but equally one could say that short of violations of laws the
treatment of a child is entirely at the discretion of his/her parents.
The child is not classed as property but in terms of protection from
the law the difference between a child and a pet is one of degree
rather than of kind.

> This
> situation does not seem to me to recognize the inherent worth of
> the owned animal.


>From an abstract philosophical perspective it is very difficult to

argue in favour of animal ownership.


John Wesley 02-02-2006 07:00 AM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 
In article >, says...
> He
> can't even pee when and where he wants to.
>
>


Neither can you. Does that make you a slave?

You are one dingy chick!

jw

Leif Erikson[_1_] 02-02-2006 03:59 PM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 
John Wesley wrote:
> In article >, Karen Winter says...
>
>> He
>>can't even pee when and where he wants to.
>>
>>

>
>
> Neither can you. Does that make you a slave?
>
> You are one dingy chick!


Karen Winter ("glorfindel's" real name) is farther gone
than merely dingy. This is a woman who, in the early
1970s, left a good job in New Mexico in order to move
to Los Angeles to pursue a dream to "help animals" (she
has no educational background in animal care.) She
ended up shampooing stray cats at a shady animal rescue
operation in Santa Monica. Because the job paid the
predictably shit wages, she had to abandon her 10 year
old son back in New Mexico.

Karen Winter is the archetype of the blinkered,
doctrinaire true-believer. She has found a belief
system, "animal rights", that helps her to achieve her
goal of self marginalization, and as that *is* her
goal, and as "ar" is indeed a way of achieving it, she
will not - CANNOT - look at and understand contrary
interpretations. That is, she *needs* animals to have
the same status as slaves, or else the "ar" house of
cards collapses in a shitheap, and then she'd have to
look for a new way to marginalize herself.

Glorfindel 02-02-2006 04:29 PM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 
Leif Erikson wrote:

<snip>

> Karen Winter ("glorfindel's" real name)


I am not Karen Winter. You cannot disguise your
complete rout in the recent discussion by posting
personal attacks on her.

Anyone who would claim I am a Marxist on the basis of
what I have written here is certainly *not* a
reliable witness as to the character of anyone.

<snip>

Leif Erikson[_1_] 02-02-2006 05:02 PM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 
Karen Winter:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Karen Winter ("glorfindel's" real name)

>
>
> I am not Karen Winter.


You *ARE* Karen Winter. You are lying, Karen. Why are
you ashamed to admit your past?

It is established beyond reasonable doubt that you are
Karen Winter:

- same ISP
- same location (Santa Fe / Albuquerque) based on IP
address
- identical positions
- identical language
- thorough familiarity with backgrounds of (Karen's)
opponents in
newsgroups

You are Karen Winter. Understand this, Karen:
everyone participating here - Dutch, Usual Suspect,
Rick, Lesley ("pearl"), Derek, even ****wit David
Harrison - knows now that you are Karen Winter. It may
amuse you when you deny here that you're Karen Winter,
but we do know who you are, and we're far more amused
by the pathetic quality of your denials.

Glorfindel 02-02-2006 05:12 PM

Animals and Children
 
Dave wrote:

<snip>

> The important consideration is whether the dog is content, not whether
> his life is modified by human control.


Again, I would say yes and no. Like many humans, many companion
animals who are well-treated probably are content with their lives
because they don't know any alternative. A dog who has spent her life
in a city apartment, eating supermarket dry kibble and going out
on a leash to exercise on concrete sidewalks, whose only contact
with the wild is sniffing a weed growing around a potted tree and
staring at a pigeon on a powerline, and whose only social relationships
with her fellow dogs is sniffing another city dog on a leash -- such
a dog may be content, in that she is not being actively abused, but
she can hardly be called a dog in any real sense.

>>Second, any being who is legally property is at the mercy of his
>>owner, and being pampered or abused, short of severe violations
>>of welfare laws, is entirely at the discretion of the owner.


> True but equally one could say that short of violations of laws the
> treatment of a child is entirely at the discretion of his/her parents.
> The child is not classed as property but in terms of protection from
> the law the difference between a child and a pet is one of degree
> rather than of kind.


That is truer than you may realize.

Welfare for children developed very slowly. In ancient Greece, a
parent could expose an unwanted child to kill him, just as
"owners" can euthanize unwanted "pets". In Roman and Hebrew society
in ancient/Biblical times, parents still had the power of life and
death over their children. Up until the mid-19th century, there
were almost no checks on the power of parents over children. In fact,
the first legal anti-cruelty case in the U.S. concerning a child was
the Mary Ellen Case of 1874, which was brought by the New York
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to *Animals*, which had been
founded in 1866. The lawyer argued that a child was also an animal,
and deserved protection under the law. Now, if we could just get
the law to reverse this, and rule that non-human animals have the
same legal status as children, it would be a step in the right
direction.

Children have very limited rights under the law, even today. As with
animals, protection of children is often limited to cases of
blatantly unnecessary neglect and cruelty. Older children (teen
and middle-school age) are regularly denied the legal rights of
adults under the Constitution. I think children need a lot more
protection and respect than they get in our society. That doesn't
mean controls which benefit their parents in forcing them into the
mold the parent has selected for them, but freedom to develop as
unique and individual people.

>>This
>>situation does not seem to me to recognize the inherent worth of
>>the owned animal.


>>From an abstract philosophical perspective it is very difficult to

> argue in favour of animal ownership.



Leif Erikson[_1_] 02-02-2006 05:27 PM

Animals and Children
 
Karen Winter lied:

> Dave wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The important consideration is whether the dog is content, not whether
>> his life is modified by human control.

>
>
> Again, I would say yes and no.


Wrong. There is no "no" component, Karen. Dave
correctly identified the only relevant criterion.


L Like many humans, many companion
> animals


Pets. Say and write "pets", Karen. "Companion
animals" is nauseating politically-correct speech, and
should be avoided.


> who are well-treated probably are content with their lives
> because they don't know any alternative.


There can't *be* any alternative, Karen.


> A dog who has spent her


His. The gender-unspecific pronoun to use is "his".


> life in a city apartment, eating supermarket dry kibble and going out
> on a leash to exercise on concrete sidewalks, whose only contact
> with the wild is sniffing a weed growing around a potted tree and
> staring at a pigeon on a powerline, and whose only social relationships
> with her fellow dogs is sniffing another city dog on a leash -- such
> a dog may be content, in that she is not being actively abused, but
> she can hardly be called a dog in any real sense.


Of course it's a dog, you stupid ****. Dogs are, by
definition, domesticated wolves. The form the
domestication takes is irrelevant.


>
>>> Second, any being who is legally property is at the mercy of his
>>> owner, and being pampered or abused, short of severe violations
>>> of welfare laws, is entirely at the discretion of the owner.

>
>
>> True but equally one could say that short of violations of laws the
>> treatment of a child is entirely at the discretion of his/her parents.
>> The child is not classed as property but in terms of protection from
>> the law the difference between a child and a pet is one of degree
>> rather than of kind.

>
>
> That is truer than you may realize.
>
> [snip manipulated a-historical bullshit]


It isn't. There are monumental differences of kind.

Glorfindel 02-02-2006 07:33 PM

Animals and Children
 
Leif Erikson wrote:

>> Dave wrote:


>>> The child is not classed as property but in terms of protection from
>>> the law the difference between a child and a pet is one of degree
>>> rather than of kind.


......

> It isn't. There are monumental differences of kind.


Please elaborate

Leif's Smarter Brother 03-02-2006 01:56 AM

Animals and Children
 

Glorfindel wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >> Dave wrote:

>
> >>> The child is not classed as property but in terms of protection from
> >>> the law the difference between a child and a pet is one of degree
> >>> rather than of kind.

>
> .....
>
> > It isn't. There are monumental differences of kind.

>
> Please elaborate



Don't even bother asking. He hasn't a clue what he's nattering about.


Glorfindel 03-02-2006 02:20 AM

Animals and Children
 
Leif's Smarter Brother wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:


<snip>

>>>>Dave wrote:

>>
>>>>>The child is not classed as property but in terms of protection from
>>>>>the law the difference between a child and a pet is one of degree
>>>>>rather than of kind.


>>.....


>>>It isn't. There are monumental differences of kind.


>>Please elaborate


> Don't even bother asking. He hasn't a clue what he's nattering about.


I rather suspect that, but I thought I'd give him the
opportunity to demonstrate it yet again.




John Wesley 03-02-2006 05:43 AM

The Status of animals
 
In article .com>,
says...

>
> 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.
>
>

We just call 'em dogs here in the South!

jw

Autymn D. C. 03-02-2006 05:00 PM

typical racist spew from vegans...
 
Glorfindel wrote:
> I would suggest two things, however. First, that even the best
> treated companion dog has many of his natural behaviors frustrated
> by the requirements of living with humans, especially in a house.
> There are compensations, and the dog probably is reasonably content,
> but he still has most of his life modified by human control. He
> can't even pee when and where he wants to.


So you pee when and where you want to.

> Second, any being who is legally property is at the mercy of his
> owner, and being pampered or abused, short of severe violations
> of welfare laws, is entirely at the discretion of the owner. This
> situation does not seem to me to recognize the inherent worth of
> the owned animal.


Some bite back; some don't. It is the choice of the dog.


Autymn D. C. 03-02-2006 05:06 PM

Animals and Children
 
"his" is not nongenderal in any respect, unless one is blind. "one's"
is. And it's liged, not lied.


Autymn D. C. 03-02-2006 05:09 PM

If I Had $40 Million
 
ant and dec wrote:
> >> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

> >
> > I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
> > I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.



ant and dec 03-02-2006 06:20 PM

If I Had $40 Million
 
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.

>

You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

Dave[_2_] 04-02-2006 01:25 AM

Buying animals :( was typical racist spew from vegans...)
 
Sorry. Missed this one previously.

John Wesley wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
> > Would they though? A little further down you menton that you spent
> > $398 at an emergency vet. Surely it would have been cheaper to buy
> > a new dog but because you conisder him a friend rather than simply
> > a piece of property you decided to spend the money to keep him alive.
> > Would you have felt any differently if your dog had been free?
> >
> >

> Nope, but I've talked to my buddy who is an Animal Control Officer
> with the Sherriffs Dept. enough to know that there are a lot of people
> who are uncaring and feel that way. They get the kids a dog. It gets
> sick. They won't take it to the vet. They don't even get vaccinations.
> They let it die because they are too cheap to go to the vet. Then next
> thing you know they've got another free dog from the pound. The pound
> around here doesn't screen anyone. They figure they are going to put
> them to sleep anyway so if someone wants them fine. Some would probably
> be better off put to sleep than to have to go through what they do.


It sounds like the people you mention treat dogs as being simply a type
of consumer good, an attitude which Glorfindel would argue is
encouraged
by the legal status of a dog as property. Responsible dog owners,
like yourself, who treat them as companions, do you not think she has a

point here?

> jw



John Wesley 04-02-2006 04:41 AM

Buying animals :( was typical racist spew from vegans...)
 
In article . com>,
says...
> Sorry. Missed this one previously.
>
> John Wesley wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> >
says...
> > > Would they though? A little further down you menton that you spent
> > > $398 at an emergency vet. Surely it would have been cheaper to buy
> > > a new dog but because you conisder him a friend rather than simply
> > > a piece of property you decided to spend the money to keep him alive.
> > > Would you have felt any differently if your dog had been free?
> > >
> > >

> > Nope, but I've talked to my buddy who is an Animal Control Officer
> > with the Sherriffs Dept. enough to know that there are a lot of people
> > who are uncaring and feel that way. They get the kids a dog. It gets
> > sick. They won't take it to the vet. They don't even get vaccinations.
> > They let it die because they are too cheap to go to the vet. Then next
> > thing you know they've got another free dog from the pound. The pound
> > around here doesn't screen anyone. They figure they are going to put
> > them to sleep anyway so if someone wants them fine. Some would probably
> > be better off put to sleep than to have to go through what they do.

>
> It sounds like the people you mention treat dogs as being simply a type
> of consumer good, an attitude which Glorfindel would argue is
> encouraged
> by the legal status of a dog as property. Responsible dog owners,
> like yourself, who treat them as companions, do you not think she has a
>
> point here?
>
> > jw

>
>

I don't think calling a dog a companion is going to change anything. I
think shes nutty as a fruitcake!

jw

Dave[_2_] 04-02-2006 02:07 PM

Buying animals :( was typical racist spew from vegans...)
 

John Wesley wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> > Sorry. Missed this one previously.
> >
> > John Wesley wrote:
> > > In article .com>,
> > >
says...
> > > > Would they though? A little further down you menton that you spent
> > > > $398 at an emergency vet. Surely it would have been cheaper to buy
> > > > a new dog but because you conisder him a friend rather than simply
> > > > a piece of property you decided to spend the money to keep him alive.
> > > > Would you have felt any differently if your dog had been free?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Nope, but I've talked to my buddy who is an Animal Control Officer
> > > with the Sherriffs Dept. enough to know that there are a lot of people
> > > who are uncaring and feel that way. They get the kids a dog. It gets
> > > sick. They won't take it to the vet. They don't even get vaccinations.
> > > They let it die because they are too cheap to go to the vet. Then next
> > > thing you know they've got another free dog from the pound. The pound
> > > around here doesn't screen anyone. They figure they are going to put
> > > them to sleep anyway so if someone wants them fine. Some would probably
> > > be better off put to sleep than to have to go through what they do.

> >
> > It sounds like the people you mention treat dogs as being simply a type
> > of consumer good, an attitude which Glorfindel would argue is
> > encouraged
> > by the legal status of a dog as property. Responsible dog owners,
> > like yourself, who treat them as companions, do you not think she has a
> >
> > point here?
> >
> > > jw

> >
> >

> I don't think calling a dog a companion is going to change anything.


It is unlikely and Glorfindel herself has admitted as much, saying we
need to change the legal status, not just the language.

> think shes nutty as a fruitcake!
>
> jw



John Wesley 04-02-2006 06:21 PM

Animals and Children
 
In article . com>,
says...
> "his" is not nongenderal in any respect, unless one is blind. "one's"
> is. And it's liged, not lied.
>
>


you are a real pain in the ASS! Into the filter you go.........

PLONK!

Leif Erikson[_1_] 05-02-2006 12:39 AM

Animals and Children
 
Autymn D. C. wrote:

> "his" is not nongenderal in any respect, unless one is blind. "one's"
> is. And it's liged, not lied.


"nongenderal" isn't a word, you semi-literate fat ****.

The correct third person singular pronoun to use when
the sex of the person isn't known is "he", "him" or
"his", depending on case.

John Wesley 05-02-2006 04:31 AM

Animals and Children
 
In article .net>,
says...
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>
> > "his" is not nongenderal in any respect, unless one is blind. "one's"
> > is. And it's liged, not lied.

>
> "nongenderal" isn't a word, you semi-literate fat ****.
>
> The correct third person singular pronoun to use when
> the sex of the person isn't known is "he", "him" or
> "his", depending on case.
>


Autymn is an idiot. All it does is try to correct peoples grammar.
It contributes nothing to anything. I plonked it.

jw

Leif Erikson[_1_] 05-02-2006 06:52 AM

Animals and Children
 
John Wesley wrote:

> In article .net>,
> says...
>
>>Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"his" is not nongenderal in any respect, unless one is blind. "one's"
>>>is. And it's liged, not lied.

>>
>>"nongenderal" isn't a word, you semi-literate fat ****.
>>
>>The correct third person singular pronoun to use when
>>the sex of the person isn't known is "he", "him" or
>>"his", depending on case.
>>

>
>
> Autymn is an idiot. All it does is try to correct peoples grammar.
> It contributes nothing to anything. I plonked it.


I don't mind someone correcting people's grammar, but
he'd better get it right. "autymn" is indeed an idiot,
and an ungrammatical one at that.

Autymn D. C. 10-02-2006 06:55 AM

Animals and Children
 
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>
> > "his" is not nongenderal in any respect, unless one is blind. "one's"
> > is. And it's liged, not lied.

>
> "nongenderal" isn't a word, you semi-literate fat ****.


It /is/ a word, you superilliterate delusional liar. Learn
constructions in Latin and English or shut up. You know nothing about
speech, or me; but now I know you're a shithead.

> The correct third person singular pronoun to use when
> the sex of the person isn't known is "he", "him" or
> "his", depending on case.


It's never correct. You're a retard who wants to live in a unisexual
misogunic queer world.


Autymn D. C. 10-02-2006 06:58 AM

If I Had $40 Million
 
ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ant and dec wrote:
> >>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
> >>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
> >>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.



Autymn D. C. 10-02-2006 07:03 AM

Animals and Children
 
Glorfindel relegated pets to "companion animals".

<http://www.insightexpress.com/ix/VWshowSurvey.asp?id=96131&accessCode=6856517538&no backup=true&_tq=16&_tp=16&_te=16&_ms=1&joinPanelEm ailDisplayed=false&rnd=0%2E5154383&ln=1&saveState= true>:

Which of the following statements best describes your relationship with
your dog? Select only one.

My dog is like a child to me
My dog is almost a part of the family
My dog contributes to our family life
My dog is a companion
My dog is only an animal


ant and dec 10-02-2006 04:13 PM

If I Had $40 Million
 
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>>>>> I talk you (ant and dec, more of stroke-patients' grunts than names).
>>>>> I suggest you get a life, deef 'smrow.

>

You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

Glorfindel 10-02-2006 05:34 PM

Animals and Children
 
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Glorfindel relegated pets to "companion animals".


> <http://www.insightexpress.com/ix/VWshowSurvey.asp?id=96131&accessCode=6856517538&no backup=true&_tq=16&_tp=16&_te=16&_ms=1&joinPanelEm ailDisplayed=false&rnd=0%2E5154383&ln=1&saveState= true>:


Not sure why a dog-food survey is relevant, but I filled it out.

> Which of the following statements best describes your relationship with
> your dog? Select only one.


> My dog is like a child to me



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter