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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-06-2006, 09:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 27
Default Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:
On 29 Jun 2006 07:27:14 -0700, "Dave" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
On 27 Jun 2006 11:00:14 -0700, "Dave" wrote:

Spammed newsgroups removed:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
On 26 Jun 2006 17:04:13 -0700, "Dave" wrote:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

I've noticed that. You also destow them for avoiding contributing
to what I consider lives of positive value. So there's an error. You
should have said that you hand them out for avoiding contributing
to life--regardless of quality!!!--for animals raised for food.

No, because I don't.

Then I get to keep my browny points for contributing to cage free
layers and their parents, broilers and their parents, beef cattle and
their parents, and turkeys and their parents. And dairy cattle.

Not on my watch, you don't.

If you're now claiming to disagree with yourself, you need to explain
why or how you think you do before it can be given any consideration.

I don't disagree with myself. Not bestowing "browny points" for
avoiding
a product is not the same as bestowing "browny points" for consuming
that product.

Regardless, I'll go ahead and keep mine since you handed them over
to begin with.


I never gave you those browny points, except perhaps, in your
imagination.

Thanks.

What for?

LOL. At this point it appears that I thanked you for lying to me.

Wow...all of a sudden I get a lot of browny points. I get points for
the chicken I had at lunch, plus the milk, and dairy topping on desert,
plus points for the turkey sausage for dinner...cool.

I repudiate your
claim to "browny points" for using the resources appropriated from
nature to provide life to certain animals at the expense of others.

I repudiate your repudiation.

you also don't get out of your contribution
to animal deaths simply because you purchase a few items that
may not contribute to any,

I'm not claiming that I do.

You're trying to wiggle out of your use of things containing
animal by-products, simply because you purchase a few things
that don't. It's pathetic...but I guess you don't have any other
choice except to just shut up and accept the fact, or apologise
and in the future don't try to deny your contributions to it all.

I don't deny my contributions.

Many of the products I consume including
some of the vegan ones contribute to animal deaths.

Then we should agree that vegans contribute to the same
deaths everyone else does except they try to avoid contributing
to life and death for farm animals.

They avoid (or try to) contributing to the breeding, "enslavement"* and

slaughter of farm animals and the collateral deaths associated with
feeding, housing, etc. Most vegans still contribute to collateral
animal
deaths associated with our modern commercial lifestyle.

*Not that I consider "enslavement" an appropriate term when applied to
animals in this way.

No it's not. If anything, the animals probably feel more like we work
for them than the other way around, in many or most cases.

They exist to serve us, not the other way round. To pretend otherwise
is disingenuous.

You only interpret it as pretending otherwise because of your
ignorance and inconsideration of the animals we're discussing.
A person who knows something about animals could easily
understand that sometimes the animals appear to feel that humans
work for them...quite likely because humans *do* a lot of work for them.

Rubbish! Humans are working for themselves, using the animals
for their own ends. The fact that this means keeping the animals
fed, sheltered, etc. does not alter that fact.

You're completely lost now, and no surprise because of your ignorance
and inconsideration of the animals, as I pointed out. You don't even know
what we're discussing any more. This particular disagreement is about how
the animals perceive the situation, not about how it actually is.


It is unlikely that animals even have the concept of master and
servant.
They perceive that they want to be outside and having been locked
in by humans they need humans to lock them out. They perceive
that their udders are uncomfortable because they have too much
milk in their udders. They need humans to milk them because
humans have removed the natural milking machine aka calf.
Similarly the fact that they need feeding by humans represents
the fact that humans are trying to raise them in something other
than their natural environment. Your argument is a farce.


Have you spent over a hundred hours on any type of farm(s)?


You are not a farmer. You do not know farming, you do not know farm
animals.


I've certainly
seen horses and cattle getting pretty demanding for people to hurry up
and feed them, or milk them, or let them in or out of the barn...

So having bought them up in an environment where they are unable to
find food, us humble servants feed them, having seperated them from
the calves, us humble servants milk them, having locked them up in
a barn, us humble servants release them. Give me a break, Harrison.

You obviously haven't had the same experiences with animals that
I have, or haven't learned anything from them if you have.

Evasive non-answer.

I pointed out facts that you're just too ignorant to comprehend, as you
proved by being unable to understand the answer.


I find it incredible that someone would try to take credit for looking
after animals that are dependent on them, only because the humans
made it so in the first place.


Of course. That's because you're not capable of appreciating that
some animals benefit from the situation.


*NO* animals "benefit" from being bred into existence, ****wit. This
is established.

You do not get moral credit for tending to animals.


So your objections have been pretty much whittled down to:

I don't object to keeping livestock under any circumstances. What
I object to is your fallacious justifications for it. Exactly the same
can
be said of Leif and Dutch. Why can't you accept that

The Goos agree with you. But even though you are all in agreement
that it's wrong to kill livestock,

None of us believe that and you know it!

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo


An out of context quote you have dishonestly chosen to present
as his opinion.


I've asked Leif to explain how he thinks he disagrees
with himself about it,


You've whacked away at mangled statements you've slopped together,
****wit. I have never "disagreed with myself".

Everyone knows you fabricate quotes, ****wit.


none of you have yet been able to
explain exactly what that "wrongness" is. You "aras" have nothing
if you can't explain that, which you can't, so you have no argument.
That's how that works.

I only object to keeping livestock under some circumstances.
Why do you keep pummeling a straw man even after I have
explained to you that it is a straw man?

Under what conditions would you allow animals to be raised and
killed for food?


There are two considerations: 1) Are the animals treated as sentient
beings as opposed to merely food-processing machines? 2) Are natural
resources being used in an efficient, sustainable, ecologically
responsible fashion?

If the answer to both questions is yes then I have no problem with it.


Then you have no problem with what I suggest,


He, and everyone, has a problem with your claiming that causing the
animals to exist mitigates the moral harm YOU FEEL occurs when the
animals are killed. No mitigation takes place on that account,
****wit.


BTW I also advocate applying those criteria to non-animal foods.



  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-07-2006, 08:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

On 30 Jun 2006 11:38:42 -0700, "Dave" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:

It is unlikely that animals even have the concept of master and
servant.
They perceive that they want to be outside and having been locked
in by humans they need humans to lock them out. They perceive
that their udders are uncomfortable because they have too much
milk in their udders. They need humans to milk them because
humans have removed the natural milking machine aka calf.
Similarly the fact that they need feeding by humans represents
the fact that humans are trying to raise them in something other
than their natural environment. Your argument is a farce.


Have you spent over a hundred hours on any type of farm(s)?
If not, then I'll certainly maintain my own opinion over yours. If
you have, I'll still maintain my own opinion over yours plus consider
you to be an even bigger idiot than if you had not.


I don't need 100+ hours working with animals to appreciate that your
argument is a farce.


My point is that as ignorant as you are, it would take you more
than a hundred hours before you could ever begin to appreciate
the facts I point out. In fact, there's an excellent chance that you're
not capable of appreciating them at all.

I've certainly
seen horses and cattle getting pretty demanding for people to hurry up
and feed them, or milk them, or let them in or out of the barn...

So having bought them up in an environment where they are unable to
find food, us humble servants feed them, having seperated them from
the calves, us humble servants milk them, having locked them up in
a barn, us humble servants release them. Give me a break, Harrison.

You obviously haven't had the same experiences with animals that
I have, or haven't learned anything from them if you have.

Evasive non-answer.

I pointed out facts that you're just too ignorant to comprehend, as you
proved by being unable to understand the answer.

I find it incredible that someone would try to take credit for looking
after animals that are dependent on them, only because the humans
made it so in the first place.


Of course. That's because you're not capable of appreciating that
some animals benefit from the situation. If you could do that, then there
are a lot more aspects of human influence that you would be able to
understand.


Blah, blah, blah.


LOL! Your confusion is rather amusing...in a pitiful sort of way.

So your objections have been pretty much whittled down to:

I don't object to keeping livestock under any circumstances. What
I object to is your fallacious justifications for it. Exactly the same
can
be said of Leif and Dutch. Why can't you accept that

The Goos agree with you. But even though you are all in agreement
that it's wrong to kill livestock,

None of us believe that and you know it!

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

An out of context quote you have dishonestly chosen to present
as his opinion.


I've asked the stupid Goober to explain how he thinks he disagrees
with himself about it, and he can't say.


He doesn't disagree with himself


I agree that he's probably lying about this too, but the Goober has
claimed to disagree with himself.

, you idiot.

We know that he doesn't
consider ANY animals to benefit from their lives, so of course the
Goober must agree with his original claim.


AIUI he doesn't believe that there is any wrongness involved in their
deaths.


He has certainly claimed to.

He believes that if there was any wrongness then "giving
them life" [sic] does nothing to mitigate it.

IF you really believe that
Goo somehow disagrees with himself about this, then explain how.
Otherwise it will just remain apparent that you are lying for and along
with Goo, since even Goo cannot explain how he thinks he disagrees
with himself about the issue.

none of you have yet been able to
explain exactly what that "wrongness" is. You "aras" have nothing
if you can't explain that, which you can't, so you have no argument.
That's how that works.

I only object to keeping livestock under some circumstances.
Why do you keep pummeling a straw man even after I have
explained to you that it is a straw man?

Under what conditions would you allow animals to be raised and
killed for food?

There are two considerations: 1) Are the animals treated as sentient
beings as opposed to merely food-processing machines? 2) Are natural
resources being used in an efficient, sustainable, ecologically
responsible fashion?

If the answer to both questions is yes then I have no problem with it.


Then you have no problem with what I suggest, as much as you
apparently wish that you did.


Nonsense! I have a problem with your implication that it is OK to treat
farm animals cruelly as long as the cruelty is not so serious that
their
lives are of negative value.


Why?

I also haven't seen you show any concern
regarding the environmental impacts.

__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field
animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation,
mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole
population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to
plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause
additional harm to animals of the field.

In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require
fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed
pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades,
and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also
helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams.

"Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage,
would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said.

Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which
would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy
products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in
the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field
animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference,
according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in
pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain,
beans, and corn.
[...]
http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...ar02/vegan.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-07-2006, 08:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

On 30 Jun 2006 Goo wrote:

I have never "disagreed with myself".


You have claimed to think you disagree with yourself that:

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it."

are you now claiming to agree with yourself about it, or do you
still think you disagree, Goo? If you think you disagree, try to
make some attempt to see if you're capable of explaining why.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-07-2006, 09:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:


On 30 Jun 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:


I have never "disagreed with myself".



You have claimed to think you disagree with yourself


No, ****wit. I have demolished your ****witted
"animals getting to experience life" bullshit.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-07-2006, 07:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 Goo wrote:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:


On 30 Jun 2006 Goo wrote:


I have never "disagreed with myself".



You have claimed to think you disagree with yourself


No


So are you now claiming you do agree with yourself that:
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it", Goo? Or are you still claiming to
disagree with you? Which is it, you poor confused Goober?


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-07-2006, 08:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:



On 30 Jun 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:



I have never "disagreed with myself".


You have claimed to think you disagree with yourself


No, ****wit. I have demolished your ****witted "animals getting to experience life" bullshit.



So are you now claiming


I have demolished your ****witted bullshit.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-07-2006, 07:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 Goo wrote:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 Goo wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:



On 30 Jun 2006 Goo wrote:



I have never "disagreed with myself".


You have claimed to think you disagree with yourself

No, ****wit. I have demolished your ****witted "animals getting to experience life" bullshit.



So are you now claiming


I have


You agree with yourself about all of the following, Goober:

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than
ANY benefit" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does
not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-07-2006, 08:17 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:


On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:




On 30 Jun 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:




I have never "disagreed with myself".


You have claimed to think you disagree with yourself

No, ****wit. I have demolished your ****witted "animals getting to experience life" bullshit.


So are you now claiming


I have demolished your ****witted bullshit.



You agree with yourself


I agree that I have demolished your ****witted bullshit
that "being farmed" - coming into existence - is a
benefit for animals.

I see that you now agree, too. That's good.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hindu Ethics - 5 Reasons to be a vegetarian and 10 arguments against eating meat Dr. Jai Maharaj[_2_] Vegan 0 15-06-2015 05:54 PM
The ethics of Eating life? Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 5 19-07-2012 07:30 PM
Hindu Ethics - Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian & Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 0 31-12-2011 07:15 AM
Hindu Ethics - Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian & Ten Arguments Against Eating Meat Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 0 30-12-2011 06:47 PM
Hindu Ethics - Five Reasons to Be a Vegetarian & Ten ArgumentsAgainst Eating Meat Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 3 30-12-2011 06:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017