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.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness??? is not elusive at all
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:10:41 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:44:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:08:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>Vegan/ARAs believe the following: (inserted for clarity) >>> >>>>>raising livestock is an immoral ACT for several reasons, >>>>>they a >>>>> >>>>>1) It is an act of exploitation, treating sentient animals as a >>>>>commodity >>>>>2) It is an act of subjecting those animals to unnatural confinement, >>>>>i.e. >>>>>suffering >>>>>3) The *act* of killing them deliberately for our own use is a violent >>>>>and >>>>>deliberate violation of their basic rights. >>>>> >>>>>Saying that it's "because they will be killed" is a strawman. ARAs don't >>>>>care that animals "are killed" per se, they care that *humans* KILL >>>>>THEM. >>>> >>>> Humans kill animals for many reasons. >>> >>>True, but ARAs only think some of them are wrong. >>> >>>> To ONLY care about the decided >>>> and deliberate killing of livestock--as you happily don't give a shit >>>> about all >>>> the other killing you contribute to!--makes you disgusting and >>>> grotesque. >>> >>>Not me, >> >> Maybe not. > >Definitely not. > >>>those are AR ideas, >> >> They are your/"ar" ideas. > >They are not my ideas. You asked about the wrongness, I told you about it. > >>>and why are they grotesque? >> >> Because just not caring about the deaths you/"they" contribute to is >> no better than meat consumers not caring either... > >Why don't hear you calling meat eaters grotesque? > >>>Misguided is more >>>like it. It's the LoL that rates as "grotesque". >> >> ...and worse than wanting to provide lives of positive value and humane >> deaths, ie the LoL, ie decent AW. What makes it grotesque imo is that >> you/"they" oppose decent AW, regardless of how good you/"they" think >> your reason is for opposing it. > >Your LoL is not AW, it's a perversion of ultilitarian AR. > >>>And why did you play dumb and pretend that the "wrongness" is an elusive >>>idea when we all have known all along what ARAs think it is? >> >> Because as yet we don't know WHY "aras" think that raising and killing >> animals for food is wrong. > >Yes we do, we just don't buy it. Not knowing what an idea is and not >agreeing with it are completely different things. None of you are able to explain exactly why it's wrong to raise them for food. The only apparent reason would be that you/"they" incorrectly believe that it somehow cheats them out of life they otherwise would have, but that would be stupid to think because there is no such option. So, since the reason WHY it's wrong to kill them can NOT be that it cheats them out of life, we still do NOT know exactly WHY you/"aras" are saying it's wrong to raise them for food. >>>Why didn't you >>>just state that their idea of "wrongness" is selective and self-serving? >>> >>>And why did you snip my post in such a way to leave the impression that I >>>was submitting those points as my own ideas? >> >> You agree with them or you wouldn't have presented them in opposition >> to decent AW. > >I don't agree with them and I don't oppose decent AW. Why can't you address >my actual opposition to the LoL? You advocate "ar" over deliberate decent AW, which "aras" call the LoL. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness???
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:
>dh wrote: > >> On 19 Feb 2006 14:57:15 -0800, wrote: >> >> >>>dh pointed out: > >>>> As yet we don't know exactly what that "harm" is. They are not being >>>>cheated out of life because they are raised for food, as your accusation >>>>suggests to me. So far exactly WHY it's wrong has yet to be explained. >>>> >>> >>>Of course death harms them. If we raised and killed humans for food, we >>>would be harming them by killing them. >> >> >> Whatever you are saying is the harm, it is NOT that it would cheat them >> out of life. > >Prove it. The proof is their lives, Goo. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness???
dh@. wrote: > On 19 Feb 2006 14:57:15 -0800, wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On 19 Feb 2006 02:38:09 -0800, wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >dh@. wrote: > >> >> On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >dh@. wrote: > >> >> >> On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> >Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being > >> >> >> >killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's > >> >> >> going on?????? > >> >> > > >> >> >Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in > >> >> >the offing. > >> >> > >> >> They don't know about death, so they're not afraid of it. > >> > > >> >This could be disputed. > >> > >> Only if you can explain how you think they could possibly learn about > >> it. We raised and killed pigs and chickens for years, and killed them right > >> in front of each other, and none of them ever learned to be afraid of > >> death even after seeing it happen to their siblings and offspring, so you > >> will really need to come up with a good one before I'll believe animals who > >> have never even seen it somehow know to fear death. > >> > >> >At any rate, the fact remains that death harms them. > >> > >> As yet we don't know exactly what that "harm" is. They are not being > >> cheated out of life because they are raised for food, as your accusation > >> suggests to me. So far exactly WHY it's wrong has yet to be explained. > >> > > > >Of course death harms them. If we raised and killed humans for food, we > >would be harming them by killing them. > > Whatever you are saying is the harm, it is NOT that it would cheat them > out of life. Instead they would experience whatever life they did experience > --good OR bad!--as a result of it. > > >It's the same with animals. > > Yes. > > >> >We discussed earlier the case of raising humans and killing them > >> >for food. Let us suppose that these humans were intellectually > >> >impaired, and didn't know what death was. Would this mean that it was > >> >acceptable to raise and kill them for food? > >> > >> Not to me. To me it would be better to raise and eat animals, in large > >> part because they could be provided with better lives. > >> > > > >I don't see any particular evidence for that. > > I do. They don't require as much in order to be healthy and content. > How could you overlook that? > > >Is that the only reason > >you can come up with? > > Humans grow too slowly. They require too much care for too long > while young. They take too long to reach the age where they can > reproduce. Those are other reasons. There are more, but that is more > than enough right there for me to promote raising animals for food over > raising humans. > But if we could provide the humans with good lives, then it would be fine? If you really think that, I don't know whether I have anything more to say. Moral argument has to stop somewhere. > >> >> They just > >> >> become afraid of new conditions in general, or if someone hurts them > >> >> or something. If people would be considerate, there's no reason why > >> >> their deaths should be overly frightening or painful. I take all of that into > >> >> consideration when I suggest the decent lives that the Goos amusingly > >> >> get away with saying I don't consider. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness???
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness???
dh@. wrote: > On 24 Feb 2006 00:36:16 -0800, wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > > > >> Humans grow too slowly. They require too much care for too long > >> while young. They take too long to reach the age where they can > >> reproduce. Those are other reasons. There are more, but that is more > >> than enough right there for me to promote raising animals for food over > >> raising humans. > >> > > > >But if we could provide the humans with good lives, then it would be > >fine? > > It depends on the details like I told you to begin with. We ARE in that > situation right now. No, we're not. I was speaking of humans being raised for food, and killed by other human beings before their natural death. > You're alive, but you will eventually be killed by > something, and your body will be consumed. Is that "fine" or not? > If not, then what solution(s) can you think of? > > >If you really think that, I don't know whether I have anything more to > >say. Moral argument has to stop somewhere. > > Can you really ask yourself if you would say no to raising humans > for food only out of consideration for "them"? I would object to it because it would involve violations of the right to life. > I don't believe you > can, because if you were able to you would have to at least give > SOME!!! consideration to what their lives would be like!!! The same > is true in regards to the animals that we DO raise of food. Moral > argument has to stop somewhere? What makes you think it has > even begun? Maybe you feel that any sort of pre-determined life > span somehow makes life not worth living, or something like that? > If so then please say so and support the feeling. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness???
****wit David Harrison, stupid ****witted lying cracker, lied again:
> On 24 Feb 2006 00:36:16 -0800, wrote: > > You're alive, but you will eventually be killed by > something, and your body will be consumed. Is that "fine" or not? > If not, then what solution(s) can you think of? NO, ****wit. Most of us will *not* be killed by some moral actor who *decides* to kill or not kill. You keep pretending you don't understand the difference, but even as stupid and deliberately ignorant as you are, you *do* understand the difference. Most people will *not* be "killed" in the normal, everyday sense that most intelligent people use that word - and you know this. For certain, ****wit, most people will not be killed by a being who chooses to kill, who is capable of changing his mind and deciding not to kill. That's the moral difference, and it's a huge one, and you *KNOW* it's a huge one, and you're being your typically ****witted cocksucking self in pretending not to see the difference. You are a cocksucker. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness???
On 24 Feb 2006 12:59:52 -0800, wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On 24 Feb 2006 00:36:16 -0800, wrote: >> >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> > >> >> Humans grow too slowly. They require too much care for too long >> >> while young. They take too long to reach the age where they can >> >> reproduce. Those are other reasons. There are more, but that is more >> >> than enough right there for me to promote raising animals for food over >> >> raising humans. >> >> >> > >> >But if we could provide the humans with good lives, then it would be >> >fine? >> >> It depends on the details like I told you to begin with. We ARE in that >> situation right now. > >No, we're not. > >I was speaking of humans being raised for food, and >killed by other human beings before their natural death. How long would they live? How would they be raised? What would they be fed? Who would care for them as infants? How long would the breeders live? What would they be taught? >> You're alive, but you will eventually be killed by >> something, and your body will be consumed. Is that "fine" or not? >> If not, then what solution(s) can you think of? >> >> >If you really think that, I don't know whether I have anything more to >> >say. Moral argument has to stop somewhere. >> >> Can you really ask yourself if you would say no to raising humans >> for food only out of consideration for "them"? > >I would object to it because it would involve violations of the right >to life. Totally lame on your part. >> I don't believe you >> can, because if you were able to you would have to at least give >> SOME!!! consideration to what their lives would be like!!! The same >> is true in regards to the animals that we DO raise of food. Moral >> argument has to stop somewhere? What makes you think it has >> even begun? Maybe you feel that any sort of pre-determined life >> span somehow makes life not worth living, or something like that? >> If so then please say so and support the feeling. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness???
On 24 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:
>Most people will *not* be "killed" in the normal, everyday sense that >most intelligent people use that word - and you know this. I know most people suffer longer than most livestock who are slaughtered Goo. Why do you think that means we should stop raising livestock? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
¿¿¿That ever elusive wrongness???
dh@. wrote: > On 24 Feb 2006 12:59:52 -0800, wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On 24 Feb 2006 00:36:16 -0800, wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >dh@. wrote: > >> > > >> >> Humans grow too slowly. They require too much care for too long > >> >> while young. They take too long to reach the age where they can > >> >> reproduce. Those are other reasons. There are more, but that is more > >> >> than enough right there for me to promote raising animals for food over > >> >> raising humans. > >> >> > >> > > >> >But if we could provide the humans with good lives, then it would be > >> >fine? > >> > >> It depends on the details like I told you to begin with. We ARE in that > >> situation right now. > > > >No, we're not. > > > >I was speaking of humans being raised for food, and > >killed by other human beings before their natural death. > > How long would they live? How would they be raised? What would they > be fed? Who would care for them as infants? How long would the breeders > live? What would they be taught? > I don't know. Do the answers to these questions somehow affect the morality of the practice? > >> You're alive, but you will eventually be killed by > >> something, and your body will be consumed. Is that "fine" or not? > >> If not, then what solution(s) can you think of? > >> > >> >If you really think that, I don't know whether I have anything more to > >> >say. Moral argument has to stop somewhere. > >> > >> Can you really ask yourself if you would say no to raising humans > >> for food only out of consideration for "them"? > > > >I would object to it because it would involve violations of the right > >to life. > > Totally lame on your part. > I would have thought it was fairly reasonable. Why do you think it's lame? > >> I don't believe you > >> can, because if you were able to you would have to at least give > >> SOME!!! consideration to what their lives would be like!!! The same > >> is true in regards to the animals that we DO raise of food. Moral > >> argument has to stop somewhere? What makes you think it has > >> even begun? Maybe you feel that any sort of pre-determined life > >> span somehow makes life not worth living, or something like that? > >> If so then please say so and support the feeling. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Goo on killing
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 Goo wrote:
>****wit David Harrison, lying cracker in Buford, GA, lied: >>Goo wrote: >>>"Kill" is reserved for accidents, deliberate human >>>killing, and killing by animals; possibly a few other means, >> >> >> Like being killed by cancer, or a heart attack, or a stroke, or >> emphysema... > >No. One is not "killed by" those things, Even though this is apparently something else you're just too stupid to grasp, ones who are killed by them are killed by them, Goo. Every one of them in fact. A person killed by anything, is ALWAYS killed by it. The same is true of animals, Goo. >****wit. One dies from them. Ones die from them ONLY when those things kill people, but never when they don't kill them. It seems even a person as stupid as yourself should be able to grasp that, but no. >Your usage is not standard, LOL! It is for a lot of people who know others that were killed by cancer, or a heart attack, or a stroke, or emphysema... For example: both my parents were killed by cancer, and it killed them by causing specific functions of their bodies to fail. Not only are people aware that cancer kills others Goo, but they are even aware of HOW: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+ Search Web Results 1 - 10 of about 525 for "how cancer kills". (0.09 seconds) [...] >and in fact it is a deliberate attempt to mislead. You who say things that kill people do not kill them, is making an obvious deliberate attempt to mislead Goober. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The elusive Costco bag | General Cooking | |||
The rare and elusive #100 (and other) scoops... | Baking | |||
Elusive Little Bottles! | Winemaking |