Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
No such thing as "livestock hatred"
****wit David Harrison, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> 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, No. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
dh@. skrev: > "Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's > obvious." - Doutche ON the family farms, sure. On the giant factory farms, you have to be joking. And freedom from suffering is not the only criterion for a good life. How would you like to be locked in place and be grown like a plant and never get to use your body the way it was meant to be used. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
Dutch skrev: > > Dutch skrev: > > > 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. So you would be against the vast majority of meat production in the US that does require grain feeding, that do require more farmland for each produced pound of protein. > > 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. Animal feed does cause tremedous damage, sorry you are wrong. You are also not taking into account the incredible damage animal waste does to the ecoystem, especially damaging to water life. soya is not a grain. > > 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. I assume this will be too subtle a point for you, but I have no interest in putting down a meateater. This is nto about me being better than any meateater and if you've somehow read that into what I wrote go back and look again, it is simply your assumption about what I must be like. I am saying there is a practical imperative we as a species are ignoring. I could care less what my friends eat and I never try to talk someone into vegetarianism. I don't monitor people's recycling either 1) systematic problems are more important 2) it's rude 3) I have better things to do with my time, even though I do recycle as much of my garbage as I can. You are wrong about what it takes to create a pound of edible protein. Meat protein production puts much more pressure and damange on the ecosystems, despite what some freerange farms may produce, factory farming is still the rule. And that does not take into account problems such as hormones entering the water supply, livestock shit entering the land and water supply, antibiotics entering the human biomass where there is no illness. Adn while some of the hysterical excesses of the meat industry - like feeding dead pigs and chicken shit to cows and the diseases this has led to - do not rule out the idea of meat eating in general, these excesses are ongoing and endemic. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > 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 m... > >>>>> 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." That doesn't mean that we ought to domesticate animals so they can avoid suffering. What an absurd notion. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:49:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>nobody *should* be thinking about "promoting life" > > People should, No they shouldn't, it's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > 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 Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you would come along and apply the LoL without it being conditional upon the animals being happy. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:59:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> 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 om... >> >>>>>> 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." > >That doesn't mean that we ought to domesticate animals so they can avoid >suffering. What an absurd notion. I don't suggest that as you know. Why in the **** are you such a dishonest piece of shit anyway? Oh, you're afraid you'd lose browny points to me if you were honest and gave me the credit I deserve aren't you? Yes, you are. It's envy, *IF!* you're not an "ara". But it's more likely that you lie because you're an "ara" than it is because you're just insanely jealous. Hmmm. We know you lie, and that you do it deliberately. There MUST be some reason(s) WHY you lie about me, and what I suggest. I can think of two reasons: 1. If as I suspect you're an "ara", you lie in an attempt to prevent people from considering decent AW over "ar", as your hero Goo admittedly does: "Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo 2. You are jealous of something(s) that I point out and/or suggest, which is why you deliberately lie about what I suggest and refuse to give me credit for what I actually do suggest. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part of >> the LoL: >> >> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt > >Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you would >come along and apply the LoL He might have. He might have even predicted that someone like me would make a point of considering the quality of life, and that other lowlife disgusting slime like yourself would deliberately lie about it, so he included it at the time for people like myself to present to liars like you. He might have detested liars like you Goos: >without it being conditional upon the animals >being happy. and included the specification with liars like yourselves in mind. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
There is no such thing as "livestock hatred"
****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied: > > > >> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part of > >> the LoL: > >> > >> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt > > > >Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you would > >come along and apply the LoL > > He There is no such thing as "livestock hatred", ****wit, except in your warped imagination. I suppose you might hate those livestock animals who have rejected your sexual advances on them. How many animals have you had sex with, ****wit David Harrison? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
<dh@.> wrote in message news > On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:59:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> 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 >>>>>>news:n80kv11qu1ggfjuvefns10qse6tk7qnt4m@4ax. com... >>> >>>>>>> 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." >> >>That doesn't mean that we ought to domesticate animals so they can avoid >>suffering. What an absurd notion. > > I don't suggest that Yes you do. Your very position is predicated on the notion that we do something "good" by causing livestock to come into existence. Even when it is pointed out to you that those lives come to be at the expense of wildlife, you still fail to understand that causing livestock to come into existence and "experience life" is NOT doing anything "good" per se. <snip rant> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
<dh@.> wrote in message news > On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part of >>> the LoL: >>> >>> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >> >>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you would >>come along and apply the LoL > > He might have. It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that even the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to those who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news >> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> >>>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part of >>>> the LoL: >>>> >>>> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>> >>>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you would >>>come along and apply the LoL >> >> He might have. > >It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that even >the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to those >who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. LOL!!! Exactly WHICH part of his fantasy do you think disputes the fact that decent lives are significant? Of course I feel sure you can't provide any example(s), since there are none. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
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 The Logic of the Vegan This thread began with the hysterical logic that eating meat is good for animals because then the livestock get to live until they are eaten. The problem with this logic - apart from quality of life issues - is that ecosystems including both animals and plants are being destroyed to produce soy beans as feed. Even species are threated and destroyed. Additionally of course pesticides in the production soy go into the land water and us. Paving the Amazon with Soy World Bank Bows to Audit of Maggi Loan by Sasha Lilley, Special to CorpWatch December 16th, 2004 The sprawling state of Mato Grosso, in central west Brazil, could be thought a paradise of sorts, at least from a distance. The lush rainforest of the Amazon basin, often called the "lungs of the world," straddles the state, as does the grassy Brazilian savanna or cerrado. Parrots, jaguars and pumas are just a few of the abundant species found in the savanna, considered one of the most biodiverse in the world, along with endangered species like the maned wolf, anteater and river-dwelling giant otter. The landscape, however, is rapidly being altered as vast fields of soybeans and cattle ranches replace grasslands and forests. Soy rules Mato Grosso and it's not the soy that much of the world associates with the ostensibly eco-friendly, vegetarian diet, either. In the wake of the Mad Cow disease scare, soy producers have benefited from increased demand in affluent countries for meat from cows that are fed soy meal, rather than animal-based feed. This is only the latest in a series of factors that have allowed a company named the André Maggi Group to spearhead, along with the Brazilian government, the expansion of soy in Mato Grosso and adjacent states over the last two decades, with disturbing consequences. "Soy -- at this moment -- is the most important driver for deforestation, directly and indirectly," says environmental analyst Jan Maarten Dros. "Directly because the cerrado is being converted from natural vegetation into soy fields. But indirectly, because in this region a lot of cattle farms are being replaced by soy farmers buying or renting land from cattle farmers." This means, according to Dros' 2003 WWF study on the impacts of soybean cultivation in Brazil, that the "cattle farmers tend to advance into new forest area, causing more deforestation." The governor of the state of Matos Grosso is Blairo Maggi, the owner of the Maggi group, who is also known as the rei da soja -- the Soybean King. In fact, the Maggi Group is the largest private soy producer in the world. The company grossed $600 million in sales this year, primarily managing the production, trade and processing of over 2 million tons of soy, most of it destined for livestock in Europe and Asia. Maggi has also been key in establishing transportation infrastructure that further opens the Amazon to development and deforestation. In 2003, Maggi's first year as governor, the deforestation rate in Mato Grosso more than doubled. Last year when the New York Times pointed out that the destruction of the Amazon had risen by two-fifths, Blairo Maggi responded: "To me, a 40 percent increase in deforestation doesn't mean anything at all, and I don't feel the slightest guilt over what we are doing here. We are talking about an area larger than Europe that has barely been touched, so there is nothing at all to get worried about." Despite the fragile ecosystem in which it operates, and the controversy around its practices, the Brazilian agribusiness giant has had little trouble getting bankrolled by private banks in Europe and Japan, and by public institutions like the International Finance Corporation(IFC), the private-lending arm of the World Bank. In 2002 the Maggi Group's soy production division, Amaggi Exportação e Importação Limitada, landed two back-to-back US $30 million loans from the IFC -- one in 2002 and second that was granted in September of 2004. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
dh@. wrote: Hey, let's talk pigs. Cesspools Pig farms with 100,000 animals produce the waste of a city of a quarter-million people, but have no wastewater treatment system.82 At a single site in Missouri, one pig factory produces fecal waste equivalent to that of a city of 360,000.6 There are wastes in addition to manure. According to one industry journal, "a 5000 sow farrow-to-finish farming system with a mortality of 7%, 10%, 5%, 1% and 1% in the sow, neonatal, nursery, growing, and finishing herd, respectively, will produce in one year over 200,000 pounds of dead pigs."83 In October of 1999, Hurricane Floyd swept through North Carolina. Spreading with the rain was feces and urine, mostly from giant pig farms.8 The storm killed more than two million turkeys, chickens, pigs and other farmed animals.8 Images of bloated pigs and turkey carcasses filled television screens. The storm destroyed more than $1 billion in crops and compromised the drinking water of a portion of the state, with more than 50 lagoons flooding.82 With these images, there was no more hiding the huge environmental problem created by pig farms. According to some, Hurricane Floyd brought public attention to the problems of factory farming. One of the main issues is the lagoons typically used by pig farms. Most are as big as football fields. The definition of lagoon is 'a vessel, usually open air and in the ground, that provides storage and limited treatment of animal by-product and associated water that has been flushed out of pig farms.84 After Hurricane Floyd, one inspector reported that of the 310 private wells checked for contamination, 9%, three times the average across eastern North Carolina, had fecal coliform bacteria.8 In 1998, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water quality report to Congress cited agriculture as the leading source of pollution in 70% of impaired river miles.82 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources in North Carolina found 41 cases in which pollution from pig farms reached creeks, lakes, or rivers in 2000. They identified 285 cases in which pig lagoons were too full and in danger of spilling, and 338 cases in which pig farmers had sprayed too much pig waste onto crops as fertilizer.85 Over a billion fish were killed due to a pig waste spill into the Neuse River in North Carolina in June of 1995.86 Anaerobic decomposition of liquefied pig manure in under-barn storage pits open outdoor lagoons produces nearby 400 volatile organic compounds; the most abundant being methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and carbon dioxide.6 According to the N.C. Division of Air Quality, pig farms discharge at least 186 tons of ammonia in to the air every day. Much of this returns to the ground by way of rain and wind.87 A 2000 USDA survey of 94% of the U.S. pig inventory found that 62.1 facilities die not test groundwater for nitrates or bacteria, and 92.5% did not test air quality for pollutants such as ammonia or hydrogen sulfide.29 The Swine Farrowing Handbook (1992) suggests "As much as possible, isolate the dust, noise and odor of the operation from both the family living center and neighboring homes".88 Tim Burcham of Mississippi State University says that raw pig manure scores a 6 or 7 on odor intensity, with 8 being unbearably strong.89 Unfortunately for the pigs, they can't escape the dust, noise, and odor. Cases have occurred where all the pigs in a building have suffocated when the ventilation systems failed.6 Carbon monoxide has caused sows to abort and have stillbirths.6 The Smell of Greed A recent article in National Hog Farmer reported that in U.S., 44 of the 50 states have regulations that deal directly or indirectly with odors from factory farms. Only 15 states require that owners and operators of farms have training to apply manure.90 Smithfield Foods, the largest operation in the country, was fined $12.6 million by the EPA for sewage discharges and other violations.91 In 1999 gross profits for Smithfield were $540 million.92 In the fall of 2001, IBP (the world's largest 'meat' packer) settled with the EPA for $4.1 million in penalties for violating the nation's environmental laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act.93,94 Bush administration sources say the settlement between the EPA and IBP will set the standard for future enforcement efforts against agribusiness that maintain animal waste lagoons.94 This was the first time the EPA had ever obtained civil penalties under the Clean Air Act or EPCRA for air emissions from the waste lagoons. (In September of 2001, IBP was purchased by Tyson Foods, Inc.95 Tyson kills 45 million birds a week.96 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message news >>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>> >>>>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part >>>>> of >>>>> the LoL: >>>>> >>>>> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>>> >>>>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you >>>>would >>>>come along and apply the LoL >>> >>> He might have. >> >>It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that even >>the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to those >>who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. > > LOL!!! Exactly WHICH part of his fantasy do you think disputes > the fact that decent lives are significant? Of course I feel sure > you can't provide any example(s), since there are none. Here's how I see it... The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral beneficiaries also. Here's how you see it.. The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them irrevocably in our debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we do even more to glorify ourselves, placing them even deeper in our debt. We are already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, why not the moral beneficaries also? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
dh@. wrote: something It's fairly simple. It is not more cows and pigs vs. less cows and pigs. The more cows and pigs we have the fewer of other kinds of animals (and plants and even species of both) the planet can support. Why? Because we have to use land to grow vegetable proteins to feed these animals. Land that previously - and could again - support other animals and plants IN THEIR NATURAL HABITATS. Adding to this the damage cause by hormone, shit, pesticide runoff - especially from pigs farms - that goes into the water and damages yet more animals and plants (and humans) adn the issue is even clearer - if, as the original poster was trying to claim, we are taking into consideration the lives of animals. We could simply phase out cow and pig production. No living animal need die. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
I also notice no one mentioning VEAL.
I assume given the arguments put forth hear that the meat eaters here are against veal production. It fails under all criteria. So step forth meat eaters and take a stand against the radical fringe of your group, the veal producers and eaters. Here we have a terrible short unnatural - in the negative - life. WE have vast land resources going into each gram of protein created. Thus there is great waste and damage to the land, other animals and to plants. And we don't even need to mention what it does to the calf itself. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
There is no such thing as "livestock hatred"
On 24 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:
>There is no such thing as "livestock hatred" People who want to eliminate them must necessarily hate livestock Goober. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
There is no such thing as "livestock hatred"
****wit David Harrison, common hick liar in Buford,GA,
lied: > On 24 Feb 2006 Leif Erikson wrote: > > >>There is no such thing as "livestock hatred" > > > People who want to eliminate them must necessarily hate > livestock No. That's a non sequitur. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On 26 Feb 2006 02:15:38 -0800, wrote:
>dh@. wrote: > > >Because of livestock the rainforests are being turned into soybean >farms. If, as you stated, soybean farms are more damaging to the >environment than livestock farms, your arguement eats itself and >carries no weight. > >Check out the link below: > >http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html That provides more pieces of the puzzle. It was apparent that crop farming is of greater value than livestock: __________________________________________________ _______ "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 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ so why would anyone just bother with livestock? Your link explains: "LAND TENURE LAWS -- In Brazil, colonists and developers can gain title to Amazon lands by simply clearing forest and placing a few head of cattle on the land. As an additional benefit, cattle are a low risk investment relative to cash crops which are subject to wild price swings and pest infestations. Essentially cattle are a vehicle for land ownership in the Amazon." but it also goes on to point out the changing ways: "Recently soybeans have become one of the most important contributors to deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Thanks to a new variety of soybean developed by Brazilian scientists to flourish rainforest climate, Brazil is on the verge of supplanting the United States as the world's leading exporter of soybeans." |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message news >>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote in message om... >>>> >>>>>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part >>>>>> of >>>>>> the LoL: >>>>>> >>>>>> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>>>> >>>>>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you >>>>>would >>>>>come along and apply the LoL >>>> >>>> He might have. >>> >>>It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that even >>>the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to those >>>who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. >> >> LOL!!! Exactly WHICH part of his fantasy do you think disputes >> the fact that decent lives are significant? Of course I feel sure >> you can't provide any example(s), since there are none. > >Here's how I see it... > >The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are already >the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >beneficiaries also. > >Here's how you see it.. They would have no life if not for what they get. If their lives are decent, I consider that to be of possitive value to the animals. You can't conceive of how life could have possitive value to the animal, regardless of the method of husbandry. I can. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
<dh@.> wrote in message news > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message >>>>news >>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>>news:d6rrv1pinimoj8kl5fbupo8nl9p3d8ri8c@4ax. com... >>>>> >>>>>>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the LoL: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>>>>> >>>>>>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you >>>>>>would >>>>>>come along and apply the LoL >>>>> >>>>> He might have. >>>> >>>>It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that >>>>even >>>>the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to >>>>those >>>>who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. >>> >>> LOL!!! Exactly WHICH part of his fantasy do you think disputes >>> the fact that decent lives are significant? Of course I feel sure >>> you can't provide any example(s), since there are none. >> >>Here's how I see it... >> >>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>already >>the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>beneficiaries also. >> >>Here's how you see it.. > > They would have no life if not for what they get. Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them irrevocably in our debt. > If their lives are decent, I consider that to > be of possitive value to the animals. ...placing them even deeper in our debt. > You can't conceive of how life could have > possitive value to the animal, regardless of > the method of husbandry. I can. We are already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, why not the moral beneficaries also? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
Dutch said:
> > <dh@.> wrote in message news > > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > >> > >><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>><dh@.> wrote in message > >>>>news > >>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message > >>>>>>news:d6rrv1pinimoj8kl5fbupo8nl9p3d8ri8c@4ax. com... > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>> the LoL: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you > >>>>>>would > >>>>>>come along and apply the LoL > >>>>> > >>>>> He might have. > >>>> > >>>>It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that > >>>>even > >>>>the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to > >>>>those > >>>>who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. > >>> > >>> LOL!!! Exactly WHICH part of his fantasy do you think disputes > >>> the fact that decent lives are significant? Of course I feel sure > >>> you can't provide any example(s), since there are none. > >> > >>Here's how I see it... > >> > >>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in > >>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only > >>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are > >>already > >>the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral > >>beneficiaries also. > >> > >>Here's how you see it.. > > > > They would have no life if not for what they get. > > Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them > irrevocably in > our debt. > > > If their lives are decent, I consider that to > > be of possitive value to the animals. > > ..placing them even deeper in our debt. > > > You can't conceive of how life could have > > possitive value to the animal, regardless of > > the method of husbandry. I can. > > We are already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, why not the moral > beneficaries also? > > > In the wild, most animals die in pain before maturity. Is this true of livestock? They should not suffer in their lives, but would cows and chickens be such successful species without our "help"? I bet if you asked any chicken, they would quite eloquently state that they would rather be a chicken than a spotted owl. We worry about the rights of animals, but buy shoes made by children? We cry about aborted fetuses, while spending hundreds of billions to bomb sentient humans? Death is a part of life, and as animals, we depend on it, but we shouldn't thrive on it. We thrive in the balance between compassion and realism. -- Smiles, Tony |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..] >Here's how I see it... > >The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us >irrevocably in their debt. Oh, really? >By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. Priceless! |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>Here's how I see it... >>> >>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>beneficiaries also. >>> >>>Here's how you see it.. >> >> They would have no life if not for what they get. > >Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >irrevocably in our debt. Make up your mind. You initially declared, "Here's how I see it.. The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in their debt." but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
There is no such thing as "livestock hatred"
****wit David Harrison, THOROUGHLY confused,
senselessly blabbered: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison, THOROUGHLY confused, senselessly blabbered: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>****wit David Harrison, THOROUGHLY confused, senselessly blabbered: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>****wit David Harrison, THOROUGHLY confused, senselessly blabbered: >>>>>>news:d6rrv1pinimoj8kl5fbupo8nl9p3d8ri8c@4ax. com... >>>>> >>>>>>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>the LoL: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>>>>> >>>>>>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you >>>>>>would >>>>>>come along and apply the LoL >>>>> >>>>> He might have. >>>> >>>>It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that even >>>>the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to those >>>>who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. >>> >>> LOL!!! Exactly WHICH part of his fantasy do you think disputes >>>the fact that decent lives are significant? Of course I feel sure >>>you can't provide any example(s), since there are none. >> >>Here's how I see it... >> >>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are already >>the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>beneficiaries also. >> >>Here's how you see it.. > > > They would have no life if not for what they get. If their lives are decent, > I consider that to be of possitive value to the animals. You can't conceive of > how life could have possitive value to the animal, regardless of the method > of husbandry. I can. ****wit, you lying shitbag: you've said that their lives are of "possitive" [holy ****ing sic] value *only* if they have "decent" treatment. NOW you're reverting back to your ****witted, uninformed, bizarre view that life is a "benefit" to them *irrespective* of their treatment (method of husbandry). You've completely tied yourself up in knots, ****wit - not hard for a skinny little possum-****ing redneck homo to do, I guess. You are just clueless, ****wit - abso****inglutely clueless. Who the johnny-chicken****ing-reb do you think you are, trying to argue with people who have education and who can think? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>>>Here's how I see it... >>>> >>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>>already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>>beneficiaries also. >>>> >>>>Here's how you see it.. >>> >>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >> >>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >>irrevocably in our debt. > > > Make up your mind. You initially declared, > > "Here's how I see it.. > > The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places > us irrevocably in their debt." > > but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. Come on, read the whole thing - he clearly was poking fun at ****wit. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:22:18 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>> >>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>>>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>>>already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>>>beneficiaries also. >>>>> >>>>>Here's how you see it.. >>>> >>>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >>> >>>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >>>irrevocably in our debt. >> >> Make up your mind. You initially declared, >> >> "Here's how I see it.. >> >> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places >> us irrevocably in their debt." >> >> but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. > >Come on, read the whole thing - he clearly was poking >fun at ****wit. I have read the whole thing. Dutch initially starts by saying, "Here's how I see it.. The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in their debt." "Here's how you (Harrison) see it.. The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them irrevocably in our debt." But when Harrison expresses the same belief again Dutch swaps things around and agrees with Him by concluding, "Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them irrevocably in our debt." He has it wrong which ever way he tries to explain it; animals cannot be in our debt, or vice versa. No matter how hard Dutch tries to escape it, he still follows Harrison's position very closely. "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 He has no argument with Harrison because he in fact agrees with him and always has done since early 2001. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>Here's how I see it... >>>> >>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably >>>>in >>>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may >>>>only >>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>>already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the >>>>moral >>>>beneficiaries also. >>>> >>>>Here's how you see it.. >>> >>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >> >>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >>irrevocably in our debt. > > Make up your mind. You initially declared, > > "Here's how I see it.. > > The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places > us irrevocably in their debt." > > but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. I am speaking as if I were he, translating his statements into the form I attributed, showing that they match. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
"Derek" > wrote > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > [..] >>Here's how I see it... >> >>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us >>irrevocably in their debt. > > Oh, really? > >>By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. > > Priceless! Problem? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:01:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>> >>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food >>>>>places us irrevocably in their debt. By treating >>>>>them kindly and killing them humanely we may >>>>>only approach making it a square deal, but we >>>>>can never get there. We are already the physical >>>>>beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>>>beneficiaries also. >>>>> >>>>>Here's how you see it.. >>>> >>>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >>> >>>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for >>>food places them irrevocably in our debt. >> >> Make up your mind. You initially declared, >> >> "Here's how I see it.. >> >> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food >> places us irrevocably in their debt." >> >> but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. > >I am speaking as if I were he, translating his statements >into the form I attributed, showing that they match. No, you would've included, "According to you ..." if that was the case. You screwed up and inadvertently conceded that you agree with Harrison's position. You've been in agreement with his position on this issue since early 2001 when writing; "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life *as David says*, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q and "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 You have no argument with Harrison because you in fact agree with him and always have done since early 2001. Tell me, in what sense are meat eaters irrevocably in the debt of the animals they eat if not morally, Dutch, and if they are morally indebted to farm animals, how? How does "The fact that we raise them to kill them for food place us irrevocably in their debt"? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:03:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> [..] >>>Here's how I see it... >>> >>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us >>>irrevocably in their debt. >> >> Oh, really? >> >>>By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. >> >> Priceless! > >Problem? How does killing animals for food place meat eaters in the debt of those animals, Dutch? According to you, "By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there.", so tell me what meat eaters are indebted to. What do meat eaters owe them, and being that this debt can never be repaid why is it right and proper to continue eating them, thereby making their debt to dead animals even greater? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>news >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:d6rrv1pinimoj8kl5fbupo8nl9p3d8ri8c@4ax .com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the LoL: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you >>>>>>>would >>>>>>>come along and apply the LoL >>>>>> >>>>>> He might have. >>>>> >>>>>It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that >>>>>even >>>>>the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to >>>>>those >>>>>who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. >>>> >>>> LOL!!! Exactly WHICH part of his fantasy do you think disputes >>>> the fact that decent lives are significant? Of course I feel sure >>>> you can't provide any example(s), since there are none. >>> >>>Here's how I see it... >>> >>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>already >>>the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>beneficiaries also. >>> >>>Here's how you see it.. >> >> They would have no life if not for what they get. > >Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >irrevocably in >our debt. > >> If their lives are decent, I consider that to >> be of possitive value to the animals. > >..placing them even deeper in our debt. > >> You can't conceive of how life could have >> possitive value to the animal, regardless of >> the method of husbandry. I can. > >We are already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, why not the moral >beneficaries also? Claim whatever browny points you want then, I don't care. Neither do the animals. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:23:59 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:22:18 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >>Derek wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>>> >>>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>>>>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>>>>already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>>>>beneficiaries also. >>>>>> >>>>>>Here's how you see it.. >>>>> >>>>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >>>> >>>>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >>>>irrevocably in our debt. >>> >>> Make up your mind. You initially declared, >>> >>> "Here's how I see it.. >>> >>> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places >>> us irrevocably in their debt." >>> >>> but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. >> >>Come on, read the whole thing - he clearly was poking >>fun at ****wit. > >I have read the whole thing. Dutch initially starts by saying, > > "Here's how I see it.. > > The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places > us irrevocably in their debt." > > "Here's how you (Harrison) see it.. > > The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places > them irrevocably in our debt." > >But when Harrison expresses the same belief again Dutch >swaps things around and agrees with Him by concluding, > > "Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food > places them irrevocably in our debt." > >He has it wrong which ever way he tries to explain it; animals >cannot be in our debt, or vice versa. No matter how hard Dutch >tries to escape it, he still follows Harrison's position very closely. He pasted this fact one time for some insane reason: __________________________________________________ _______ From: "Dutch" > Message-ID: > The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ but he has no clue what it means, and he disagrees with it completely! He almost certainly just copies and pastes things that sound good to him, even though he has no idea what they mean. Not at all unlike his Goobal hero.... |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:57:26 -0500, Tony Orlow > wrote:
>Dutch said: >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message news >> > You can't conceive of how life could have >> > possitive value to the animal, regardless of >> > the method of husbandry. I can. >> >> We are already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, why not the moral >> beneficaries also? >> >> >> > >In the wild, most animals die in pain before maturity. Is this true of >livestock? The method of killing is usually easier on livestock than on wildlife imo, mentally and physically. >They should not suffer in their lives, but would cows and chickens >be such successful species without our "help"? I bet if you asked any chicken, >they would quite eloquently state that they would rather be a chicken than a >spotted owl. It's a sad surprise that these supposed "aras" are incapable of giving the lives of livestock any real consideration, much less of comparing them with those of wildlife. >We worry about the rights of animals, but buy shoes made by children? We cry >about aborted fetuses, while spending hundreds of billions to bomb sentient >humans? Death is a part of life, and as animals, we depend on it, but we >shouldn't thrive on it. We thrive in the balance between compassion and >realism. We have the ability to provide decent lives for billions of animals and eat them too. There has yet to be a good reason presented why we need to disregard that aspect when we contemplate human influence on animals. "aras" of course insist that we *do* disregard it, but as with other things they can't explain *why* we should do as they insist. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:01:48 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message .. . >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>> >>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably >>>>>in >>>>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may >>>>>only >>>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>>>already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the >>>>>moral >>>>>beneficiaries also. >>>>> >>>>>Here's how you see it.. >>>> >>>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >>> >>>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >>>irrevocably in our debt. >> >> Make up your mind. You initially declared, >> >> "Here's how I see it.. >> >> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places >> us irrevocably in their debt." >> >> but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. > >I am speaking as if I were he It's more of your fantasy shit, and that's all you're capable of. Since you have absolutely no clue how life could have positive value for any livestock--much MUCH less is it of any significance to you!--how could you even believe you can speak as if it is? LOL! The very idea that you would say you could is quite amusing. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:22:18 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>>> >>>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>>>>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>>>>already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>>>>beneficiaries also. >>>>>> >>>>>>Here's how you see it.. >>>>> >>>>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >>>> >>>>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >>>>irrevocably in our debt. >>> >>>Make up your mind. You initially declared, >>> >>> "Here's how I see it.. >>> >>> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places >>> us irrevocably in their debt." >>> >>>but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. >> >>Come on, read the whole thing - he clearly was poking >>fun at ****wit. > > > I have read the whole thing. Dutch initially starts by saying, > > "Here's how I see it.. > > The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places > us irrevocably in their debt." > > "Here's how you (Harrison) see it.. > > The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places > them irrevocably in our debt." > > But when Harrison You mean ****wit. Call him ****wit. It's how he is known. > expresses the same belief again Dutch > swaps things around and agrees with Him by concluding, > > "Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food > places them irrevocably in our debt." He still is paraphrasing ****wit to belittle him. It isn't Dutch's own thoughts; I think that's obvious. > > He has it wrong which ever way he tries to explain it; animals > cannot be in our debt, or vice versa. No matter how hard Dutch > tries to escape it, he still follows Harrison's position very closely. > > "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that > we create, breed and raise, giving them a life > > *as David says*, > > in exchange for the use of their hides. We give > them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. > It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe > includes treating them with respect." > Dutch 2001-01-19 http://tinyurl.com/2g89q > > and > > "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial > partnership." > Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8 > > He has no argument with Harrison because he in fact > agrees with him and always has done since early 2001. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison lied: >> >>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:46:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>****wit David Harrison lied: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:02:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your boy tells us specifically that decent AW is an integral part >>>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>>>the LoL: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"when their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Salt was an ARA, he did not even *contemplate* that someone like you >>>>>>>>would >>>>>>>>come along and apply the LoL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He might have. >>>>>> >>>>>>It wasn't "contemplated" in this writing. He disputes the notion that >>>>>>even >>>>>>the lives of animals raised happily can garner moral significance to >>>>>>those >>>>>>who intend to kill them for food. He does a good job of it. >>>>> >>>>> LOL!!! Exactly WHICH part of his fantasy do you think disputes >>>>>the fact that decent lives are significant? Of course I feel sure >>>>>you can't provide any example(s), since there are none. >>>> >>>>Here's how I see it... >>>> >>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>>already >>>>the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>>beneficiaries also. >>>> >>>>Here's how you see it.. >>> >>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >> >>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >>irrevocably in >>our debt. >> >> >>>If their lives are decent, I consider that to >>>be of possitive value to the animals. >> >>..placing them even deeper in our debt. >> >> >>>You can't conceive of how life could have >>>possitive value to the animal, regardless of >>>the method of husbandry. I can. >> >>We are already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, why not the moral >>beneficaries also? > > > Claim whatever browny points you want then, I don't care. Neither > do the animals. The animals don't even care that they exist, ****wit. Coming into existence is not a benefit for them. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of Livestock Hatred
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:23:59 +0000, Derek > wrote: > > >>On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:22:18 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >> >>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:43:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>Here's how I see it... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places us irrevocably in >>>>>>>their debt. By treating them kindly and killing them humanely we may only >>>>>>>approach making it a square deal, but we can never get there. We are >>>>>>>already the physical beneficiaries of their lives, we cannot be the moral >>>>>>>beneficiaries also. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Here's how you see it.. >>>>>> >>>>>> They would have no life if not for what they get. >>>>> >>>>>Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food places them >>>>>irrevocably in our debt. >>>> >>>>Make up your mind. You initially declared, >>>> >>>> "Here's how I see it.. >>>> >>>> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places >>>> us irrevocably in their debt." >>>> >>>>but now you're saying they're in our debt instead. >>> >>>Come on, read the whole thing - he clearly was poking >>>fun at ****wit. >> >>I have read the whole thing. Dutch initially starts by saying, >> >>"Here's how I see it.. >> >> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places >> us irrevocably in their debt." >> >>"Here's how you (Harrison) see it.. >> >> The fact that we raise them to kill them for food places >> them irrevocably in our debt." >> >>But when Harrison expresses the same belief again Dutch >>swaps things around and agrees with Him by concluding, >> >>"Therefore the fact that we raise them to kill them for food >> places them irrevocably in our debt." >> >>He has it wrong which ever way he tries to explain it; animals >>cannot be in our debt, or vice versa. No matter how hard Dutch >>tries to escape it, he still follows Harrison's position very closely. > > > He pasted this fact one time for some insane reason No, it was for a good reason: to show what a ****witted idiot you are. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Vegetarian Bill Gates: 'Livestock produces 51% of world's greenhouse gases' | Vegan | |||
Livestock falling ill in fracking regions | General Cooking | |||
The livestock auction | General Cooking | |||
Who eats corn? Mostly livestock | Vegan | |||
Further reflections on the bogus "efficiency" critique of feedinggrain to livestock | Vegan |