****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:17:33 -0800, "Doutche" wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>
>
>>> The Logic of the Larder means decent AW Goo.
>>
>>But you don't follow the classic utilitarian LoL where you must take great
>>care to ensure that their lives are long and happy ****wit, your position
>>has always been simply that the life they get is better than no life at all.
>
>
> That's a lie

No, ****wit. You DO NOT CARE about animal welfare; you
scarcely even pay lip service to it.

****wit David Harrison blabbered:

> [...]

There is no such thing as "livestock hatred". "vegans"
hate *you*, ****wit, not the livestock.

Dutch skrev:


> Vegan dogma. All modern agriculture is radical simplification (read
> destruction) of ecosystems. The plains are covered with wheat and canola,
> valleys covered with orchards and vineyards, all soaked with poison to
> combat pests and weeds. In point of fact, pasture is far more amenable to
> coexistence with wildlife than crop (killing) fields.

Is it? Really? Well that only makes my arguement stronger. Because
every pound of beef produced requires the transformation of complex
ecosystems into farmland to produce the grains that are used as feed
for livestock.

Animal protein requires much more land/ecosystem damage to produce one
pound of protein than is required with vegetable protein BECAUSE it
requires another step, in which much is lost.

I am not a Vegan. I don't read Vegan dogma. It sounds like in this
case it happily coincides with fact.

Why don't you just say it is your right to eat meat and lay off
pretending you give a shit about the effects of that right?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:17:33 -0800, "Doutche" wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>>> The Logic of the Larder means decent AW Goo.
>>
>>But you don't follow the classic utilitarian LoL where you must take great
>>care to ensure that their lives are long and happy ****wit, your position
>>has always been simply that the life they get is better than no life at
>>all.
>
> That's a lie you tell over and over and over because you're a sorry
> lowlife scum, among whatever other reasons.

Describe the great care that you take to ensure that their lives are long
and happy.

> Quality of life determines
> whether or not life has positive value to animals, even though you've
> proven yourself unable to understand that.

What's to understand?

>The fact that you can't
> understand means it's *possible* you're not deliberately lying but truly
> are as stupid as you insist, but as I point out you would have to be
> even more stupid than I can believe you are. So of course I'm left to
> wonder why you lie, and conclude that it's because you're an "ara".

People who reject the Logic of the Larder are not automatically ARAs, deal
with reality for a change.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 12 Feb 2006 11:29:17 -0800, wrote:
>
>>I believe that even trees, plants are alive. So all the years i was in
>>confusion what to eat.
>>
>>I don't remember date, surely since 01.01.2005 i am vegeterian. I was
>>never addicted to it anyway.
>>
>>Yes, i know their are always bacteria present in my vegeterian food.
>>But i am not going to get bogged down by this logic.
>>
>>Human beings have killed more animals than dinasaures.
>
> It always comes down to what you want to promote life for.

ARAs look at it that way, not normal people. You are taking stupid AR logic
and turning it on it's ear, making it even more stupid. You are like an ARA
who went insane.

> So
> far no one has convinced me that it's wrong to promote life for all
> livestock, though I feel that some of their lives would not be worth
> living but could be replaced by some that are. Veg*nism doesn't
> provide a good option to that.

That's a pointless, circular argument.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
>
>>It is not a choice between dog and no dog
>>or cow and no cow
>>etc.
>
> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
> or no life at all.

That's The Logic of the Larder verbatim, you just called me a liar for
accusing you of believing that.

>>It is a choice between unnatural and tortuous lives - dogs hidiously
>>obese are not enjoying life - and other life living in the natural
>>setting they fit.
>>
>>Mccdonalds' hamburgers are at the expense of natural complex living
>>systems - for example rainforests - that are burned to the ground and
>>the land used to support meat eating habits.
>
> The rainforests are origially burned to the ground to grow crops, and
> later after the soil becomes poor from crop production it will only grow
> grass so the farmers have to raise livestock instead:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> "We tried. We worked the land, bit by bit cutting down the
> forest. But it rained and rained and rained. The mosquitoes
> were insufferable. We experienced terrible suffering," he
> says. Used to planting maize and wheat, he had to grow
> instead rice and cassava. "At the beginning the rice was
> wonderful, but from then on it never produced the same. Now
> the only thing this land is good for is grass and livestock."
>
> http://www.nri.org/InTheField/bolivia_s_b.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dutch skrev:
>
>
>> Vegan dogma. All modern agriculture is radical simplification (read
>> destruction) of ecosystems. The plains are covered with wheat and canola,
>> valleys covered with orchards and vineyards, all soaked with poison to
>> combat pests and weeds. In point of fact, pasture is far more amenable to
>> coexistence with wildlife than crop (killing) fields.
>
> Is it? Really?

Yes.

> Well that only makes my arguement stronger.

No it doesn't.

> Because
> every pound of beef produced requires the transformation of complex
> ecosystems into farmland to produce the grains that are used as feed
> for livestock.

No it doesn't require it. Most beef is finished because it is economically
viable to do so, grain is cheap, so are by-products, which do NOT require
extra farmland to produce. The beef I eat is NOT finished, so requires no
grain.

> Animal protein requires much more land/ecosystem damage to produce one
> pound of protein than is required with vegetable protein BECAUSE it
> requires another step, in which much is lost.

That's a false statement. Many forms of animal protein are available which
require NO grain-feeding. You are also failing to calculate or indicate
which crops cause more "land/ecosystem damage". Grass, animal feed, for
example causes very little compared to all vegetarian foods, especially
grains like canola and soya.

> I am not a Vegan. I don't read Vegan dogma.

You're still spouting vegan bullshit nonetheless.

> It sounds like in this
> case it happily coincides with fact.

In fact it does NOT, it's simplistic vegan bullshit.

> Why don't you just say it is your right to eat meat?

I consider that to be self-evident.

> and lay off
> pretending you give a shit about the effects of that right?

I'm not the one claiming a moral imperative here. You're attempting to mount
a moral/ethical case against eating meat and failing badly at it. All
agriculture is deadly, you have no moral standing to present a case against
anyone else's diet.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
>
> >It is not a choice between dog and no dog
> >or cow and no cow
> >etc.
>
> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
> or no life at all.
>
> >It is a choice between unnatural and tortuous lives - dogs hidiously
> >obese are not enjoying life - and other life living in the natural
> >setting they fit.
> >
> >Mccdonalds' hamburgers are at the expense of natural complex living
> >systems - for example rainforests - that are burned to the ground and
> >the land used to support meat eating habits.
>
> The rainforests are origially burned to the ground to grow crops, and
> later after the soil becomes poor from crop production it will only grow
> grass so the farmers have to raise livestock instead:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> "We tried. We worked the land, bit by bit cutting down the
> forest. But it rained and rained and rained. The mosquitoes
> were insufferable. We experienced terrible suffering," he
> says. Used to planting maize and wheat, he had to grow
> instead rice and cassava. "At the beginning the rice was
> wonderful, but from then on it never produced the same. Now
> the only thing this land is good for is grass and livestock."
>
> http://www.nri.org/InTheField/bolivia_s_b.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Rainforest destruction.
'
1. Immediate Causes
Logging
Agriculture-Shifted Cultivators
Agricultures-Cash Crops & Cattle Ranching
Fuelwood
Large Dams
Mining and Industry
Colonisation Schemes
Tourism

2. Underlying Causes
Development and Overconsumtion: the Basis Cause
Colonialism
Exploitation by Industrialised Countries
The Debt Burden
The Role of Poverty and Overpopulation
...
Agriculture-Shifted Cultivators

Shifted cultivators' is the term used for people who have moved
into rainforest areas and established small-scale farming operations.
These are the landless peasants who have followed roads into
already damaged rainforest areas. The additional damage they are
causing is extensive. Shifted cultivators are currently being blamed
for 60% of tropical forest loss (Colchester & Lohmann).

The reason these people are referred to as 'shifted' cultivators is
that most of them people have been forced off their own land.
For example, in Guatemala, rainforest land was cleared for coffee
and sugar plantations. The indigenous people had their land stolen
by government and corporations. They became 'shifted cultivators',
moving into rainforest areas of which they had no previous
knowledge in order to sustain themselves and their families
(Colchester & Lohmann).

Large-scale agriculture, logging, hydroelectric dams, mining, and
industrial development are all responsible for the dispossession
of poor farmers.

"One of the primary forces pushing landless migrants into the
forests is the inequitable distribution of agricultural land"
(WRI 1992, Colchester & Lohmann). In Brazil, approximately
42% of cultivated land is owned by a mere 1% of the population.
Landless peasants make up half of Brazil's population (WRM).
Once displaced, the 'shifted cultivators' move into forest areas,
often with the encouragement of their government. In Brazil, a
slogan was developed to help persuade the people to move
into the forests. It read "Land without men for men without
land" (WRM).

After a time, these farmers encounter the same problems as
the cash crop growers. The soil does not remain fertile for
long. They are forced to move on, to shift again, going further
into the rainforest and destroying more and more of it.

It is evident that the shifted cultivators "have become the
agents for destruction but not the cause" (Westoby 1987:
Colchester). Shifted cultivators do not move into pristine
areas of undisturbed rainforests. They follow roads made
principally for logging operations. "Shifted cultivators are
often used by the timber industry as scapegoats" (Orams
and McQuire). Yet logging roads lead to an estimated 90%
of the destruction caused by the slash-and-burn farmers
(Martin 1991: Colchester).
..
Agricultures-Cash Crops & Cattle Ranching

Undisturbed and logged rainforest areas are being totally
cleared to provide land for food crops, tree plantations or
for grazing cattle (Colchester & Lohmann). Much of this
produce is exported to rich industrialised countries and in
many cases, crops are grown for export while the local
populace goes hungry.

Due to the delicate nature of rainforest soil and the destructive
nature of present day agricultural practices, the productivity
of cash crops grown on rainforest soils declines rapidly after
a few years.

Monoculture plantations - those that produce only one species
of tree or one type of food - on rainforest soil are examples of
non-sustainable agriculture.

They are referred to as cash crops because the main reason
for their planting is to make money quickly, with little concern
about the environmental damage that they are causing.

Modern machinery, fertilisers and pesticides are used to
maximise profits. The land is farmed intensively. In many
cases, cattle damage the land to such an extent that it is of
no use to cattle ranchers any more, and they move on,
destroying more and more rainforest. Not only have the
forests been destroyed but the land is exploited, stripped
of nutrients and left barren, sustaining no-one.
...'
http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/background/causes.htm

'Livestock, Development & Deforestation Brazil's Amazon

It’s well known that the largest remaining tropical rainforest
on Earth, that of the Amazon, is undergoing rapid deforestation.
The rate of clearing in the Brazilian Amazon is now one of the
world’s highest, and may have even increased to 25,500 square
kilometres between 2001 and 2002.

What’s less well appreciated is that the rate of deforestation
of the Brazilian Amazon does not depend solely on forest
policies, or on a particular piece of forest’s inaccessibility.

Currently 80% of the land cleared is not for timber, but to
create cattle ranches. So to understand the causes of
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, researchers need to
understand the forces that influence how much land will be
cleared for cattle ranching in different areas at different times.

Benoit Mertens from CIFOR, and colleagues (from CIRAD
in France, and EMBRAPA, INPE and IPAM, in Brazil), used
high-resolution satellite images and economic data to analyse
some of the complex factors behind deforestation in Brazil’s
Amazon.

Their fascinating findings, published in Agricultural Economics
in December 2002 and Bois et forêt des Tropiques (in press),
show a whole range of economic, social and developmental
factors come into play.

Satellite images for the periods 1985-1992 and 1992-1999
showed intensive forest clearing in all study areas, with the
rate of deforestation increasing in the 1990s. Most of the
forest clearings were devoted to pasture, but the intensity
and patterns of clearing were not uniform.

To understand why there are different rates of clearing, the
team compared the history of clearing between several
regions in the state of Pará (particularly São Félix do Xingú
in Southern Pará) and the region of Uruará along the
Transamazon Highway.

Since the middle of the 1980s, the dominant process of
land use change in São Félix do Xingú has been the
conversion of forest to pasture.

Between 1986 and 1999, 42% of forest loss was to
small-scale ranchers in government colonization projects,
while 23% came from medium-sized ranches and small
ranchers outside colonization projects.

Smallholders in São Félix do Xingú have become
integrated in livestock production and marketing chains.
The calves are sold to the large ranches (fazendas) that
fattened them for sale to the big factories. These
smallholders also sell milk to modern dairy plants attracted
to the area by public investment in electricity, roads, and
credit.

During the same period, 35% of the land cleared was for
large cattle ranches. New roads connected south Para with
northeast and southeast Brazil, giving meat producers in
south Pará access to major urban markets.

To supply those markets investors built large slaughterhouses
and refrigerated meatpacking plants, which in turn bought
increasing numbers of cattle from the fazendas.

“This seems to simulate both intensification of cattle production,
particularly close the slaughterhouses and the main roads, and
extensive production systems through new forest clearings”
said Mertens.

But in the second study area of Uruará, the researchers found
more complex land use trajectories.

The Uruará region is characterised by state-directed colonisation
settlement program, and a high proportion of small-scale farmers.
Such systems typically include annuals (such as rice and beans),
perennials (cocoa, pepper and coffee) and pasture.

But the prices and yields of the main perennial crops fluctuate,
and since the 1990s more smallholders are turning to livestock,
which provides lower but safer returns.

However, small farmers in Uruará still do not rely exclusively on
cattle for income, and demand is lower than is São Félix do Xingú.

Because of these factors, the rate of deforestation in Uruará was
much lower in the period studied (and from a much lower base) -
but still increasing over time.

...'
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/_ref.../livestock.htm

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:28:32 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>It is not a choice between dog and no dog
>>>or cow and no cow
>>>etc.
>>
>> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
>> or no life at all.
>
>That's The Logic of the Larder

No it's not. The LoL requires that: "their life is a fairly
happy one." - "ar" Salt

>verbatim, you just called me a liar for
>accusing you of believing that.

I called you a liar for lying about what I believe again/still.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:26:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On 12 Feb 2006 11:29:17 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that even trees, plants are alive. So all the years i was in
>>>confusion what to eat.
>>>
>>>I don't remember date, surely since 01.01.2005 i am vegeterian. I was
>>>never addicted to it anyway.
>>>
>>>Yes, i know their are always bacteria present in my vegeterian food.
>>>But i am not going to get bogged down by this logic.
>>>
>>>Human beings have killed more animals than dinasaures.
>>
>> It always comes down to what you want to promote life for.
>
>ARAs look at it that way,

That's the way it is.

>not normal people.

Anyone who can't recognise the way it is--like you--is
pretty stupid.

>You are taking stupid AR logic
>and turning it on it's ear,

I'm pointing out facts that you/"aras" don't want to see
considered.

>making it even more stupid. You are like an ARA
>who went insane.
>
>> So
>> far no one has convinced me that it's wrong to promote life for all
>> livestock, though I feel that some of their lives would not be worth
>> living but could be replaced by some that are. Veg*nism doesn't
>> provide a good option to that.
>
>That's a pointless, circular argument.

You say that because it promotes AW over "ar".

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:28:32 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is not a choice between dog and no dog
>>>>or cow and no cow
>>>>etc.
>>>
>>> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
>>> or no life at all.
>>
>>That's The Logic of the Larder
>
> No it's not. The LoL requires that: "their life is a fairly
> happy one." - "ar" Salt

No, it doesn't require it. For example when you gnaw on a piece of meat you
daydream about how lucky that animal was that you like meat. You never
required that the animal had a "fairly happy life" for you to think that
way, any imagined momentary contentment for that animal is sufficient for
you to engage in your self-justification.

>>verbatim, you just called me a liar for
>>accusing you of believing that.
>
> I called you a liar for lying about what I believe again/still.

You called me a liar because I told the truth about what you believe, and
you don't like it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:26:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>>> It always comes down to what you want to promote life for.
>>
>>ARAs look at it that way,
>
> That's the way it is.

No it isn't.

>>not normal people.
>
> Anyone who can't recognise the way it is--like you--is
> pretty stupid.

Insanity: thinking that everyone else is crazy.

>>You are taking stupid AR logic
>>and turning it on it's ear,
>
> I'm pointing out facts that you/"aras" don't want to see
> considered.

You aren't pointing out any facts, you are misconstruing facts.

>>making it even more stupid. You are like an ARA
>>who went insane.
>>
>>> So
>>> far no one has convinced me that it's wrong to promote life for all
>>> livestock, though I feel that some of their lives would not be worth
>>> living but could be replaced by some that are. Veg*nism doesn't
>>> provide a good option to that.
>>
>>That's a pointless, circular argument.
>
> You say that because it promotes AW over "ar".

No, I am saying it because it's a fact. That's a pointless, circular
argument.

Moo.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:

> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:26:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On 12 Feb 2006 11:29:17 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I believe that even trees, plants are alive. So all the years i was in
>>>>confusion what to eat.
>>>>
>>>>I don't remember date, surely since 01.01.2005 i am vegeterian. I was
>>>>never addicted to it anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, i know their are always bacteria present in my vegeterian food.
>>>>But i am not going to get bogged down by this logic.
>>>>
>>>>Human beings have killed more animals than dinasaures.
>>>
>>> It always comes down to what you want to promote life for.
>>
>>ARAs look at it that way,
>
>
> That's the way it

isn't.


>>not normal people.
>
>
> Anyone

You don't know a thing.

****wit David Harrison, son of a whore and redneck
pig-****er, lied:

> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:28:32 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, son of a whore and redneck pig-****er, lied:
>>
>>>On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is not a choice between dog and no dog
>>>>or cow and no cow
>>>>etc.
>>>
>>> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
>>>or no life at all.
>>
>>That's The Logic of the Larder
>
>
> No it's not.

Yes, it is.


>>verbatim, you just called me a liar for
>>accusing you of believing that.
>
>
> I called you

Smart.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:28:32 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is not a choice between dog and no dog
>>>>>or cow and no cow
>>>>>etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
>>>> or no life at all.
>>>
>>>That's The Logic of the Larder
>>
>> No it's not. The LoL requires that: "their life is a fairly
>> happy one." - "ar" Salt
>
>No, it doesn't require it. For example when you gnaw on a piece of meat you
>daydream about how lucky that animal was that you like meat. You never
>required that the animal had a "fairly happy life" for you to think that
>way, any imagined momentary contentment for that animal is sufficient for
>you to engage in your self-justification.
>
>>>verbatim, you just called me a liar for
>>>accusing you of believing that.
>>
>> I called you a liar for lying about what I believe again/still.
>
>You called me a liar because I told the truth

I doubt that ever happened or ever will, you sorry lump
of shit. On the other hand I call you a liar often after you lie.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:54:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:26:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>> It always comes down to what you want to promote life for.
>>>
>>>ARAs look at it that way,
>>
>> That's the way it is.
>
>No

Liar.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:28:32 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is not a choice between dog and no dog
>>>>>>or cow and no cow
>>>>>>etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
>>>>> or no life at all.
>>>>
>>>>That's The Logic of the Larder
>>>
>>> No it's not. The LoL requires that: "their life is a fairly
>>> happy one." - "ar" Salt
>>
>>No, it doesn't require it. For example when you gnaw on a piece of meat
>>you
>>daydream about how lucky that animal was that you like meat. You never
>>required that the animal had a "fairly happy life" for you to think that
>>way, any imagined momentary contentment for that animal is sufficient for
>>you to engage in your self-justification.
>>
>>>>verbatim, you just called me a liar for
>>>>accusing you of believing that.
>>>
>>> I called you a liar for lying about what I believe again/still.
>>
>>You called me a liar because I told the truth
>
> I doubt that ever happened

You only need to look up a few lines...

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:54:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:26:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>> It always comes down to what you want to promote life for.
>>>>
>>>>ARAs look at it that way,
>>>
>>> That's the way it is.
>>
>>No
>
> Liar.

No, what we want to "promote life for" is not what it comes down to, at all.
It comes down to what we want, period. In the case of livestock we want
there to be as many as fulfil the demand for products derived from them. If
no products were demanded we would want there to be no livestock. "Promoting
life" is LoL bullshit.

Animals are just processed plants.


dh@. wrote:
> The Logic of the Larder means decent AW.
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Logic of the Larder
>
> by Henry S. Salt
>
> Excerpted from The Humanities of Diet. Manchester: The Vegetarian Society, 1914
>
> It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is better for them to live and
> to be butchered than not to live at all. Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
> flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit or pastime, when their life
> is a fairly happy one.
> [...]
> Let us heartily accept all that may be said of "the joyfulness of life." But what is the moral to
> be drawn from that fact? Surely not that we are justified in outraging and destroying life, to
> pamper our selfish appetites, because forsooth we shall then produce more of it! But rather that we
> should respect the beauty and sanctity of life in others as in ourselves, and strive as far as
> possible to secure its fullest natural development. This logic of the larder is the very negation of
> a true reverence for life; for it implies that the real lover of animals is he whose larder is
> fullest of them:
>
> He prayeth best, who eateth best
> All things both great and small.
>
> It is the philosophy of the wolf, the shark, the cannibal. If there be any truth in such an
> argument, let those who believe it have the courage of their convictions, and face the inevitable
> conclusion.
> [...]
> [2] "If the motive that might produce the greatest number of the happiest cattle would be the
> eating of beef, then beef-eating, so far, must be commended. And while, heretofore, the motive has
> not been for the sake of cattle, it is conceivable that, if Vegetarian convictions should spread
> much further, love for cattle would (if it be not psychologically incompatible) blend with the love
> of beef in the minds of the opponents of Vegetarianism. With deeper insight, new and higher motives
> may replace or supplement old ones, and perpetuate but ennoble ancient practices."-Dr. Stanton Coit.
>
> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very inaccurate title.
> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans hate meat
> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in the deaths
> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice milk vs. grass
> raised cow milk. It is now established that:
>
> The Logic of the Larder = Decent Animal Welfare
> The Logic of the Vegan = The Logic of Livestock Hatred

> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
> inaccurate title.
> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans
> hate meat
> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in the
> deaths
> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice milk
> vs. grass
> raised cow milk.

Then rice must be responsible for more animal *lives* than livestock also.
If you are so concerned about animals getting to experience life why aren't
you avocating for rice production?

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:28:32 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >>>> On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>It is not a choice between dog and no dog
> >>>>>or cow and no cow
> >>>>>etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
> >>>> or no life at all.
> >>>
> >>>That's The Logic of the Larder
> >>
> >> No it's not. The LoL requires that: "their life is a fairly
> >> happy one." - "ar" Salt
> >
> >No, it doesn't require it. For example when you gnaw on a piece of meat you
> >daydream about how lucky that animal was that you like meat. You never
> >required that the animal had a "fairly happy life" for you to think that
> >way, any imagined momentary contentment for that animal is sufficient for
> >you to engage in your self-justification.
> >
> >>>verbatim, you just called me a liar for
> >>>accusing you of believing that.
> >>
> >> I called you a liar for lying about what I believe again/still.
> >
> >You called me a liar because I told the truth
>
> I doubt that ever happened or ever will, you sorry lump
> of shit. On the other hand I call you a liar often after you lie.

I eat cows often because they taste good and aren't useful to me alive.

On 15 Feb 2006 18:54:20 -0800, "Accidental" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:49:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:28:32 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >>>> On 12 Feb 2006 04:28:05 -0800, wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>It is not a choice between dog and no dog
>> >>>>>or cow and no cow
>> >>>>>etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes it is. It's a choice between the life they do/would get,
>> >>>> or no life at all.
>> >>>
>> >>>That's The Logic of the Larder
>> >>
>> >> No it's not. The LoL requires that: "their life is a fairly
>> >> happy one." - "ar" Salt
>> >
>> >No, it doesn't require it. For example when you gnaw on a piece of meat you
>> >daydream about how lucky that animal was that you like meat. You never
>> >required that the animal had a "fairly happy life" for you to think that
>> >way, any imagined momentary contentment for that animal is sufficient for
>> >you to engage in your self-justification.
>> >
>> >>>verbatim, you just called me a liar for
>> >>>accusing you of believing that.
>> >>
>> >> I called you a liar for lying about what I believe again/still.
>> >
>> >You called me a liar because I told the truth
>>
>> I doubt that ever happened or ever will, you sorry lump
>> of shit. On the other hand I call you a liar often after you lie.
>
>I eat cows often because they taste good and aren't useful to me alive.

Then you contribute to life for future cows. "aras" will say it's pure
exploitation, and there should only be wildlife. As yet they can't explain
why. Do you know why? How do you think cattle like the stock yard,
btw? From people I've talked to about it, I believe they like it pretty well.
So unlike "aras", I believe most beef cattle have lives of positive value.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:54:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:54:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:26:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>> It always comes down to what you want to promote life for.
>>>>>
>>>>>ARAs look at it that way,
>>>>
>>>> That's the way it is.
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Liar.
>
>No, what we want to "promote life for" is not what it comes down to,

Yes it is, you poor ignoramus. 2 examples:

You/"aras" want to promote life for wildlife INSTEAD OF livestock.
The normal person wants to promote life for wildlife AND livestock.

>at all.
>It comes down to what we want, period. In the case of livestock we want
>there to be as many as fulfil the demand for products derived from them.

Having long ago established we want that, some of us go on to
promote decent lives for the animals ALSO, but others of you insist
we should do away with livestock in order to promote life for wildlife
INSTEAD.

>If
>no products were demanded we would want there to be no livestock. "Promoting
>life" is LoL bullshit.

Your father "ar" Salt taught us the LoL requires that:

"their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt

That means their live is of positive value to the animals, and it
necessarily involves providing decent AW. You/"aras" believe
that deliberately promoting decent AW for livestock is bullshit.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:48:39 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
>> inaccurate title.
>> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans
>> hate meat
>> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in the
>> deaths
>> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice milk
>> vs. grass
>> raised cow milk.
>
>Then rice must be responsible for more animal *lives* than livestock also.

Your task remains that you MUST tell us why we should opt for the rice
process over the grass raised cow milk.

>If you are so concerned about animals getting to experience life why aren't
>you avocating for rice production?

Because as yet you haven't explained why people should promote
life and death in rice production, over that involved with grass raised
dairy. No good reason is evident, and you can offer none.

On 15 Feb 2006 17:51:24 -0800, wrote:

>Animals are just processed plants.

That's one aspect of the situation. There are a number of
others, regardless of whether people consider them or not.
Many/most of these "discussions" are based on people trying
to *prevent* particular facts or aspects from being taken into
consideration by other people. Like:

>> The Logic of the Larder = Decent Animal Welfare
>> The Logic of the Vegan = The Logic of Livestock Hatred

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker pig-****er, lied:

> [...]

There is no such thing as "livestock hatred", ****wit.
It's a really silly raving of yours.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker pig-****er, lied:

> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:54:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker pig-****er, lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:54:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker pig-****er, lied
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:26:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> It always comes down to what you want to promote life for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ARAs look at it that way,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the way it is.
>>>>
>>>>No
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>>No, what we want to "promote life for" is not what it comes down to,
>
>
> Yes it is,

No, ****wit.



>>at all.
>>It comes down to what we want, period. In the case of livestock we want
>>there to be as many as fulfil the demand for products derived from them.
>
>
> Having long ago established we want that, some of us go on to
> promote decent lives for the animals ALSO,

NO, ****wit. You do not promote "decent lives" for
livestock. You do not promote that in any way. You
*ONLY* want to ensure that they exist, and you blabber
some completely phony concern for their "getting to
experience life" as your rationale for killing and
eating them.

It doesn't wash, ****wit. It never has, and it never will.


>>If no products were demanded we would want there to be no livestock.
>>"Promoting life" is LoL bullshit.

Exactly right.

<dh@.> wrote

> The normal person wants to promote life for wildlife AND livestock.

The normal person wants livestock to be raised to serve their consumer
needs. They DO NOT want to "promote life" for livestock, that idea NEVER
enters their mind. The concept is used by you in order support this circular
self-justifying argument that it is a "good thing" per se that livestock
"get to experience life".

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:48:39 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
>>> inaccurate title.
>>> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans
>>> hate meat
>>> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in
>>> the
>>> deaths
>>> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice
>>> milk
>>> vs. grass
>>> raised cow milk.
>>
>>Then rice must be responsible for more animal *lives* than livestock also.
>
> Your task remains that you MUST tell us why we should opt for the rice
> process over the grass raised cow milk.

Why not? More mice can survive on the same amount of food it takes to feed a
hog. YOU raised the idea of "promoting life" for animals, it's not my
concern that the argument actually works against your desire to promote
livestock.

>>If you are so concerned about animals getting to experience life why
aren't
>>you avocating for rice production?
>
> Because as yet you haven't explained why people should promote
> life and death in rice production, over that involved with grass raised
> dairy. No good reason is evident, and you can offer none.

Because nobody *should* be thinking about "promoting life" for livestock in
the first place, it's a ridiculous concept, and nobody does it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 15 Feb 2006 17:51:24 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Animals are just processed plants.
>
> That's one aspect of the situation. There are a number of
> others, regardless of whether people consider them or not.
> Many/most of these "discussions" are based on people trying
> to *prevent* particular facts or aspects from being taken into
> consideration by other people. Like:
>
>>> The Logic of the Larder = Decent Animal Welfare

The Logic of the Larder is not the same as Decent Animal Welfare. Anyone can
advocate Animal Welfare, even a vegan.

>>> The Logic of the Vegan = The Logic of Livestock Hatred

That's also false, vegan's pity livestock, they don't hate them.

Dutch wrote:

> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>>On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:48:39 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
>>>>inaccurate title.
>>>>The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans
>>>>hate meat
>>>>to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in
>>>>the
>>>>deaths
>>>>of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice
>>>>milk
>>>>vs. grass
>>>>raised cow milk.
>>>
>>>Then rice must be responsible for more animal *lives* than livestock also.
>>
>> Your task remains that you MUST tell us why we should opt for the rice
>>process over the grass raised cow milk.

No. That task never existed.


>
>
> Why not? More mice can survive on the same amount of food it takes to feed a
> hog. YOU raised the idea of "promoting life" for animals, it's not my
> concern that the argument actually works against your desire to promote
> livestock.
>
>>>If you are so concerned about animals getting to experience life why
>>>aren't you avocating for rice production?
>>
>> Because as yet you haven't explained why people should promote
>>life and death in rice production, over that involved with grass raised
>>dairy. No good reason is evident, and you can offer none.
>
>
> Because nobody *should* be thinking about "promoting life" for livestock in
> the first place, it's a ridiculous concept, and nobody does it.

Right.

Have you noticed? ****wit only promotes "animals
getting to experience life" if that is going to lead to
"****wit getting to experience eating animals".

"S. Maizlich" > wrote

> Have you noticed? ****wit only promotes "animals getting to experience
> life" if that is going to lead to "****wit getting to experience eating
> animals".

Curious coincidence that..

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:52:28 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>
>> The normal person wants to promote life for wildlife AND livestock.
>
>The normal person wants livestock to be raised to serve their consumer
>needs. They DO NOT want to "promote life" for livestock,

They do promote it.

>that idea NEVER
>enters their mind.

They still do promote it.

>The concept is used by you

LOL! I point out that they do promote it. You amusingly try to oppose
the fact, but you can't of course, which is what makes it funny.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:49:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:48:39 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
>>>> inaccurate title.
>>>> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans
>>>> hate meat
>>>> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in
>>>> the
>>>> deaths
>>>> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice
>>>> milk
>>>> vs. grass
>>>> raised cow milk.
>>>
>>>Then rice must be responsible for more animal *lives* than livestock also.
>>
>> Your task remains that you MUST tell us why we should opt for the rice
>> process over the grass raised cow milk.
>
>Why not?

Because the cow milk process is better for the animals involved, imo.
You/"aras" can't explain why the rice process is better, so there will neve
be any reason to believe that it is. That's how that works.

****wit David Harrison, senseless pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:49:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:48:39 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
> >>>> inaccurate title.
> >>>> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that vegans
> >>>> hate meat
> >>>> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in
> >>>> the
> >>>> deaths
> >>>> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice
> >>>> milk
> >>>> vs. grass
> >>>> raised cow milk.
> >>>
> >>>Then rice must be responsible for more animal *lives* than livestock also.
> >>
> >> Your task remains that you MUST tell us why we should opt for the rice
> >> process over the grass raised cow milk.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Because the cow milk process

You're an idiot, ****wit. We have no such "task" to tell you anything.
YOU have to tell us why you are obsessed with livestock being
preferred, morally, to wildlife.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:49:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:48:39 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> After reading all that it's clear The Logic of the Vegan is a very
>>>>> inaccurate title.
>>>>> The Logic of Livestock Hatred is accurate. It is well known that
>>>>> vegans
>>>>> hate meat
>>>>> to the extent that they would promote veganism even when it results in
>>>>> the
>>>>> deaths
>>>>> of more animals than raising livestock would, as in the case of rice
>>>>> milk
>>>>> vs. grass
>>>>> raised cow milk.
>>>>
>>>>Then rice must be responsible for more animal *lives* than livestock
>>>>also.
>>>
>>> Your task remains that you MUST tell us why we should opt for the
>>> rice
>>> process over the grass raised cow milk.
>>
>>Why not?
>
> Because the cow milk process is better for the animals involved, imo.

Better than living in nature? That's presumptuous of you.

> You/"aras" can't explain why the rice process is better, so there will
> neve
> be any reason to believe that it is. That's how that works.

I did explain it you foul-smelling, flabby-assed piece of shit, you snipped
it away unethically.

***More*** mice can survive on the same amount of food it takes to
feed a hog. YOU raised the idea of "promoting life" for animals, it's
not my concern that the argument actually works against your desire
to promote livestock.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:49:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>nobody *should* be thinking about "promoting life"

People should, but you just can't do it. I can. You can't.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:37:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:49:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>>>> Your task remains that you MUST tell us why we should opt for the
>>>> rice
>>>> process over the grass raised cow milk.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>> Because the cow milk process is better for the animals involved, imo.
>
>Better than living in nature? That's presumptuous of you.

It's something you pasted and pretended to understand, but
are obviously in reality too stupid to understand:

"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious." - Doutche

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:58:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On 15 Feb 2006 17:51:24 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>Animals are just processed plants.
>>
>> That's one aspect of the situation. There are a number of
>> others, regardless of whether people consider them or not.
>> Many/most of these "discussions" are based on people trying
>> to *prevent* particular facts or aspects from being taken into
>> consideration by other people. Like:
>>
>>>> The Logic of the Larder = Decent Animal Welfare
>
>The Logic of the Larder is not the same as Decent Animal Welfare. Anyone can
>advocate Animal Welfare, even a vegan.

Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part of the LoL:

"when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt