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.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php Download your free copy in PDF format or buy the book from Amazon.com. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:13:26 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following in order to be successful: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:13:26 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > > > >Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating > > · Vegans ....just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's wrong with their beliefs. The *only* thing you don't like is you feel they're trying to take away from you something that you like. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
Leif Erikson wrote: > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, > lied: I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of those products contains some animal product. > > · Vegans > ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's > wrong with their beliefs. Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't eat beef. It's all personal choice. The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Grow up, get a life and a real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser. /Roy |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:13:26 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > > > >Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php > <..> > The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > being vegan. 'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption. ..... The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast, the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding naturally.Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997). Suffice it to say, it is hard to imagine that the pain experienced by a mouse as she or he is killed in a harvester compares to the pain even a grass-fed cow must endure before being killed. .....' http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf > From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products > contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and > better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · 'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows,or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar, 1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan- vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population. .....' http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf 'Animal Enemies In the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power. The ranching establishment's assault on the environment, therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching, both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed areas. Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock. Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in large enough numbers to affect production in some manner. And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods, inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing some offensive characteristic. http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html Next page- http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.html 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's forestland each year. Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent." In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next 20 years. .....' GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html 'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many of their habitats. http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html 'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the organic farms, as outlined below: - Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found only on organic farms. - Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher skylark breeding rates. - Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas; one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as many spider species. - Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in numbers of pest butterflies. - Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found in the cropped areas of the fields. - Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift. ...' http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
Roy. Just Roy. wrote: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, > > lied: > > I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of > those products contains some animal product. "What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following in order to be successful:" If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. Here goes: http://www.ecover.com/dk/en/Products/Dishes/ biodegradable detergent approved by the Vegan Society Ingredients: Water Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulfate Alkyl Poly Glycoside C10-16 Sodium Chloride Citric Acid Perfume Limonene Protein Hydrolysate Aloe Barbadensis Extract Citral 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol How does this product provide "life (and death) for farm animals? This single example destroys the credibility of his entire list! > > > > · Vegans > > ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's > > wrong with their beliefs. > > Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal > products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't > eat beef. It's all personal choice. > > The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful > insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Grow up, get a life and a > real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser. > > /Roy |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:13:26 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > > > >Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating Blimey. Someone can't even offer the download of a free book without the trolls with their same old load of utter ******** popping up! The Establishment must be utterly bloody terrified of Veganism catching on to pay this bunch of totally destructive idiots to slag off Veganism with their load of misinformation and utter tripe at every opportunity! They're just like the paid MI5 professional hecklers who used to try to discredit any orators with the slightest bit of original thought at Speakers' Corner years ago - and I have proof that that's what they were. One of the *******s threatened to arrest me when I asked him if that was what he was! Since when does, "If you can't do something 100%, don't do it at all" make any sense?! Where would we be now if everyone with any ethics at all took notice of that sort of crap idea? Nemo Vegan for nearly 41 years! > > · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > What they try to avoid are products which provide life > (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > to avoid the following in order to be successful: > > Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water > Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, > Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, > Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, > Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, > Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane > Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings > > The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > being vegan. > From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products > contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and > better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
"Roy. Just Roy." > wrote in message oups.com... Leif Erikson wrote: > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, > lied: I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of those products contains some animal product. > > · Vegans > ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's > wrong with their beliefs. Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't eat beef. It's all personal choice. The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Grow up, get a life and a real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser. /Roy Well's head that man! Here! Have a Christmas Tree! (Oil industry pun - sorry!) |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... Roy. Just Roy. wrote: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, > > lied: > > I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of > those products contains some animal product. "What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following in order to be successful:" If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. Here goes: http://www.ecover.com/dk/en/Products/Dishes/ biodegradable detergent approved by the Vegan Society Ingredients: Water Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulfate Alkyl Poly Glycoside C10-16 Sodium Chloride Citric Acid Perfume Sould read Perfume: Limonene Protein Hydrolysate Aloe Barbadensis Extract Citral 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol How does this product provide "life (and death) for farm animals? This single example destroys the credibility of his entire list! Don't really see the point, but . . Glycoside: Glycerine - although this doesn't have to be animal. And there's nothing else on the list that can't be produced synthetically - even the protein these days - and Limonene is one of the very few perfumes I'm not allergic to! It's in Sainsbury's 'Basics' general purpose cleaning solution. And before the paid trolls jump in again, it's not us Vegans' fault that these chemicals have to be repeatedly batch-tested on animals using the imfamous LD50 test even after they've already been proved to be safe. It's the Law so it's Government's fault! Huntingdon do this sort of testing. So much for the BBC, Tony B'Liar et al insisting upon calling them a drug testing company! > > > > · Vegans > > ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's > > wrong with their beliefs. > > Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal > products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't > eat beef. It's all personal choice. > > The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful > insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Grow up, get a life and a > real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser. > > /Roy That'd be a re- Lief to us all! My mum used to say "You've gotta laugh or you'll cry!" |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 19 Jun 2006 18:52:56 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Roy. Just Roy. wrote: >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, >> > lied: >> >> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of >> those products contains some animal product. > >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" > >If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions >then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. No. Only IF someone only contributes to the one item you have in mind, and not to any of the others, then it would apply only to that one person. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:47:54 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · > >'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in >crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). Now we see how grass raised products are better for the environment than grain based products like rice and soy: __________________________________________________ _______ Environmental Benefits Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers, and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff. Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future crop production. It will also protect our water quality. High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life). Wildlife Advantages Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their populations are now at risk. Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat. (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed, provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland. Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which may serve as wildlife habitat. http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:22:14 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:
> >"Roy. Just Roy." > wrote in message roups.com... > >Leif Erikson wrote: >> ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, >> lied: > >I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of >those products contains some animal product. True. So the question, as usual/always is: Why did Goo lie this time? >> > · Vegans >> ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's >> wrong with their beliefs. > >Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal >products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't >eat beef. It's all personal choice. I point out that veganism doesn't help farm animals, in case anyone would like to contribute to decent lives for farm animals with their lifestyle. I wouldn't want to see someone who would like to, make the mistake of thinking they can do it by becomming a vegan. Apparently there are people like Goo who would though. Again the question of: Why does Goo favor dishonesty again this time? >The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful >insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Why does Goo lie...??? >Grow up, get a life and a >real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser. > >/Roy > > >Well's head that man! > >Here! Have a Christmas Tree! > >(Oil industry pun - sorry!) > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:47:54 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied: > > >>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>>steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>>get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>>over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>>get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>>machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>>draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>>likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>>derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products >>>contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and >>>better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · >> >>'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in >>crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). > > > Now we see how grass raised products NO, ****wit: you don't eat them. You admitted it. You don't give a shit about animal welfare, ****wit, and you never did: Dutch: >Don't you think we owe animals we raise for food decent lives? ****wit David Harrison: Not really. You don't care about animal welfare at all, ****wit: I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering. ****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999 You *never* gave a shit about animal welfare, ****wit: Dave: I am suggesting that we have no reason to promote life for farm animals ahead of life for wild animals ****wit: LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you think of either? Dave: Enlighten me. ****wit: Meat. Gravy. ****wit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006 |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, a badly disturbed, bewildered Goober
ignorantly and hysterically wailed: >You *never* gave a shit about animal welfare · Again you have shown that *incredibly!* you are STILL somehow too stupid to understand that there are different meanings for the word "life", Goober: __________________________________________________ _______ 1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings 2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ You were too stupid to understand it when I explained to you in the past: __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: .net> dh wrote: > I've pointed out that your beloved life per se, and > the individual lives of animals are completely different things. You are wrong ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ and you have again proven that you're still too stupid to understand it even now....even when the difference is pointed out to you directly: "Though life itself is a necessary benefit for all beings, the individual life experiences of the animals are completely different things and not necessarily a benefit for every animal" - dh You are just too stupid and inept a Goober to understand. Since you can't even understand something as easy as this, it's no wonder you believe some of the other stupid things you do. Stupidity really does explain a lot about you as an individual, Goo. · |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 21 Jun 2006 15:44:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On 19 Jun 2006 18:52:56 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> > >> >Roy. Just Roy. wrote: >> >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> >> > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, >> >> > lied: >> >> >> >> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of >> >> those products contains some animal product. >> > >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" >>> >> >If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions >> >then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. >> >> No. Only IF someone only contributes to the one item you >> have in mind, and not to any of the others, then it would apply >> only to that one person. > >Read the claim you made again, David. > >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" > >The key word there is "have" and since the statement is >categorical there is also an implicit "all" in between "avoid" >and "the". Meaning that your complaint would ONLY apply to a person who only contributes to whatever item you have in mind, and none of the others. >You need to reword your claim. It refers to what I want it to refer to. Anyone who contributes to Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives and/or Steel Ball Bearings, among other things, is contributing to animal deaths in that way like everyone else does. We all also contribute to wildlife deaths by the use of paper and wood products, roads and buildings, electicity etc... |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
dh@. wrote: > On 21 Jun 2006 15:44:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On 19 Jun 2006 18:52:56 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Roy. Just Roy. wrote: > >> >> Leif Erikson wrote: > >> >> > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, > >> >> > lied: > >> >> > >> >> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of > >> >> those products contains some animal product. > >> > > >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >> >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >> >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" > >>> > >> >If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions > >> >then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. > >> > >> No. Only IF someone only contributes to the one item you > >> have in mind, and not to any of the others, then it would apply > >> only to that one person. > > > >Read the claim you made again, David. > > > >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" > > > >The key word there is "have" and since the statement is > >categorical there is also an implicit "all" in between "avoid" > >and "the". > > Meaning that your complaint would ONLY apply to a person > who only contributes to whatever item you have in mind, and > none of the others. Meaning that I have demonstrated your list to be a non-credible source and hence have no reason to believe any of the other items on it. > >You need to reword your claim. > > It refers to what I want it to refer to. Anyone who contributes > to Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water > Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, > Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, > Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, > Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, > Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane > Wrap and Tape, Abrasives and/or Steel Ball Bearings, among > other things, is contributing to animal deaths in that way like > everyone else does. We all also contribute to wildlife deaths > by the use of paper and wood products, roads and buildings, > electicity etc... Goalpost move disallowed. You said that it is not possible to use any of those products without contributing to the "life and death of farm animals", to use your silly terminology. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Leif Erikson kicked ****wit David Harrison in the teeth again: > > >>You *never* gave a shit about animal welfare, ****wit, and you never did: >> >> Dutch: >> >Don't you think we owe animals we raise for food decent lives? >> >> ****wit David Harrison: >> Not really. >> >> >>You don't care about animal welfare at all, ****wit: >> >> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought >> that all of the animals I eat had terrible >> lives, I would still eat meat. That is not >> because I don't care about them at all, but I >> would just ignore their suffering. >> ****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999 >> >> >>You *never* gave a shit about animal welfare, ****wit: >> >> Dave: >> I am suggesting that we have no reason to >> promote life for farm animals ahead of life for >> wild animals >> >> ****wit: >> LOL!!!. We have at least two reasons. Can you >> think of either? >> >> Dave: >> Enlighten me. >> >> ****wit: >> Meat. Gravy. >> >> ****wit David Harrison - Mar 20, 2006 > > > · Again you have shown that I have shown beyond doubt, ****wit, you liar, that you never cared about animal welfare. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 22 Jun 2006 18:13:19 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On 21 Jun 2006 15:44:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> >> On 19 Jun 2006 18:52:56 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Roy. Just Roy. wrote: >> >> >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> >> >> > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, >> >> >> > lied: >> >> >> >> >> >> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of >> >> >> those products contains some animal product. >> >> > >> >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> >> >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> >> >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" >> >>> >> >> >If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions >> >> >then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. >> >> >> >> No. Only IF someone only contributes to the one item you >> >> have in mind, and not to any of the others, then it would apply >> >> only to that one person. >> > >> >Read the claim you made again, David. >> > >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" >> > >> >The key word there is "have" and since the statement is >> >categorical there is also an implicit "all" in between "avoid" >> >and "the". >> >> Meaning that your complaint would ONLY apply to a person >> who only contributes to whatever item you have in mind, and >> none of the others. > >Meaning that I have demonstrated your list to be a non-credible >source LOL!!! That's an obvious lie! >and hence have no reason to believe any of the other >items on it. You invent and pretend to believe any absurd lie you want to, but that doesn't change the truth. There are animal by-products in the items I listed, and you are a contemptible liar for trying to get people to believe there are not. >> >You need to reword your claim. >> >> It refers to what I want it to refer to. Anyone who contributes >> to Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives and/or Steel Ball Bearings, among >> other things, is contributing to animal deaths in that way like >> everyone else does. We all also contribute to wildlife deaths >> by the use of paper and wood products, roads and buildings, >> electicity etc... > >Goalpost move disallowed. You said that it is not possible >to use any of those products without contributing I listed products which contain animal by-products, and you are dishonestly trying to pretend it's okay that YOU contribute to many of them, simply because you might buy a vegan version of one or two of the products. Just as you don't get to claim browny points for respecting the lives of potential animals you want to prevent from having any life at all, 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, and again you are contemptible for attempting to do both. >to the "life >and death of farm animals", to use your silly terminology. If it's silly terminology in your opinion, why is it you're not able to provide anything better? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
dh@. wrote: > On 22 Jun 2006 18:13:19 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On 21 Jun 2006 15:44:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >dh@. wrote: > >> >> On 19 Jun 2006 18:52:56 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Roy. Just Roy. wrote: > >> >> >> Leif Erikson wrote: > >> >> >> > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, > >> >> >> > lied: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of > >> >> >> those products contains some animal product. > >> >> > > >> >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >> >> >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >> >> >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" > >> >>> > >> >> >If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions > >> >> >then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. > >> >> > >> >> No. Only IF someone only contributes to the one item you > >> >> have in mind, and not to any of the others, then it would apply > >> >> only to that one person. > >> > > >> >Read the claim you made again, David. > >> > > >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >> >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >> >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" > >> > > >> >The key word there is "have" and since the statement is > >> >categorical there is also an implicit "all" in between "avoid" > >> >and "the". > >> > >> Meaning that your complaint would ONLY apply to a person > >> who only contributes to whatever item you have in mind, and > >> none of the others. > > > >Meaning that I have demonstrated your list to be a non-credible > >source > > LOL!!! That's an obvious lie! Yur list is indeed an obvious lie! > > >and hence have no reason to believe any of the other > >items on it. > > You invent and pretend to believe any absurd lie you want to, > but that doesn't change the truth. There are animal by-products > in the items I listed, and you are a contemptible liar for trying to > get people to believe there are not. You were the one caught peddling lies here, Harrison. You did not claim that some biodegradable detergents contained animal parts. You claimed that it was impossible to use biodegrable detergents and still be vegan. I found a biodegradable detergent that is labelled as "suitable for vegans". You have not proven this label to be false advertising. Perhaps you are too logically challnged to realise that this refutes your original claim. If not, please either correct it or don't use it again. > >> >You need to reword your claim. > >> > >> It refers to what I want it to refer to. Anyone who contributes > >> to Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water > >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, > >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, > >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, > >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, > >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane > >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives and/or Steel Ball Bearings, among > >> other things, is contributing to animal deaths in that way like > >> everyone else does. We all also contribute to wildlife deaths > >> by the use of paper and wood products, roads and buildings, > >> electicity etc... > > > >Goalpost move disallowed. You said that it is not possible > >to use any of those products without contributing > > I listed products which contain animal by-products, With the claim that vegans have to avoid all the products on your list, meaning that there are no vegan versions of any of them. > and you are > dishonestly trying to pretend it's okay that YOU contribute to many > of them, simply because you might buy a vegan version of one or > two of the products. I didn't claim that at all, merely that the 1 error I found destroys the credibility of the source (ie you). > Just as you don't get to claim browny points > for respecting the lives of potential animals you want to prevent > from having any life at all, We've been over this many times. I appropriate "browny points" for avoiding contributing to what I consider "animal abuse". 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. > 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. Many of the products I consume including some of the vegan ones contribute to animal deaths. > and again you are contemptible for attempting to do both. Your opinion is noted. It is not respected but it is noted. > >to the "life > >and death of farm animals", to use your silly terminology. > > If it's silly terminology in your opinion, why is it you're not able > to provide anything better? "Contributing to the livestock farming industry". |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 24 Jun 2006 06:48:46 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On 22 Jun 2006 18:13:19 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> >> On 21 Jun 2006 15:44:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >dh@. wrote: >> >> >> On 19 Jun 2006 18:52:56 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Roy. Just Roy. wrote: >> >> >> >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> >> >> >> > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, >> >> >> >> > lied: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of >> >> >> >> those products contains some animal product. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> >> >> >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> >> >> >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" >> >> >>> >> >> >> >If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions >> >> >> >then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. >> >> >> >> >> >> No. Only IF someone only contributes to the one item you >> >> >> have in mind, and not to any of the others, then it would apply >> >> >> only to that one person. >> >> > >> >> >Read the claim you made again, David. >> >> > >> >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> >> >(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> >> >to avoid the following in order to be successful:" >> >> > >> >> >The key word there is "have" and since the statement is >> >> >categorical there is also an implicit "all" in between "avoid" >> >> >and "the". >> >> >> >> Meaning that your complaint would ONLY apply to a person >> >> who only contributes to whatever item you have in mind, and >> >> none of the others. >> > >> >Meaning that I have demonstrated your list to be a non-credible >> >source >> >> LOL!!! That's an obvious lie! > >Yur list is indeed an obvious lie! I am continuously impressed with how extremely dishonest you "aras" are. >> >and hence have no reason to believe any of the other >> >items on it. >> >> You invent and pretend to believe any absurd lie you want to, >> but that doesn't change the truth. There are animal by-products >> in the items I listed, and you are a contemptible liar for trying to >> get people to believe there are not. > >You were the one caught peddling lies here, Harrison. You did not claim > >that some biodegradable detergents contained animal parts. You claimed >that it was impossible to use biodegrable detergents and still be >vegan. Maybe. Post the quote. >I found a biodegradable detergent that is labelled as "suitable for >vegans". LOL! Congratulations. How many other items on the list did you find that are suitable for people who want to avoid contributing to life and death for farm animals? List them too, if there are any. >You have not proven this label to be false advertising. Perhaps you are >too logically challnged to realise that this refutes your original >claim. If not, please either correct it or don't use it again. > >> >> >You need to reword your claim. >> >> >> >> It refers to what I want it to refer to. Anyone who contributes >> >> to Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water >> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, >> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, >> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, >> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, >> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane >> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives and/or Steel Ball Bearings, among >> >> other things, is contributing to animal deaths in that way like >> >> everyone else does. We all also contribute to wildlife deaths >> >> by the use of paper and wood products, roads and buildings, >> >> electicity etc... >> > >> >Goalpost move disallowed. You said that it is not possible >> >to use any of those products without contributing >> >> I listed products which contain animal by-products, > >With the claim that vegans have to avoid all the products on your >list, meaning that there are no vegan versions of any of them. I'll clarify it. In the future, I'll say: "What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful:" and that will keep any vegan items off the list. >> and you are >> dishonestly trying to pretend it's okay that YOU contribute to many >> of them, simply because you might buy a vegan version of one or >> two of the products. > >I didn't claim that at all, merely that the 1 error I found destroys >the credibility of the source (ie you). So you're saying if you have made even 1 error yourself then your own credibility is destroyed as well? Or does it only work that way for other people? How about now that I've corrected the problem? If you're the master of credibility, how has mine changed for having complied with your request? >> Just as you don't get to claim browny points >> for respecting the lives of potential animals you want to prevent >> from having any life at all, > >We've been over this many times. I appropriate "browny points" for >avoiding contributing to what I consider "animal abuse". 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. >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. >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. Hey...that sounds familiar... >> and again you are contemptible for attempting to do both. > >Your opinion is noted. It is not respected but it is noted. > >> >to the "life >> >and death of farm animals", to use your silly terminology. >> >> If it's silly terminology in your opinion, why is it you're not able >> to provide anything better? > >"Contributing to the livestock farming industry". That doesn't get the idea across. You're welcome to try again. Since what we're referring to ARE the lives and deaths of animals raised for food, try to work that into the terminology. Best of luck with it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
> >You were the one caught peddling lies here, Harrison. You did not claim > >that some biodegradable detergents contained animal parts. You claimed > >that it was impossible to use biodegrable detergents and still be > >vegan. > > Maybe. Post the quote. "What they [vegans] try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following in order to be successful: ...." > > >I found a biodegradable detergent that is labelled as "suitable for > >vegans". > > LOL! Congratulations. How many other items on the list did you > find that are suitable for people who want to avoid contributing to > life and death for farm animals? List them too, if there are any. > > >You have not proven this label to be false advertising. Perhaps you are > >too logically challnged to realise that this refutes your original > >claim. If not, please either correct it or don't use it again. > > > >> >> >You need to reword your claim. > >> >> > >> >> It refers to what I want it to refer to. Anyone who contributes > >> >> to Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water > >> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, > >> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, > >> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, > >> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, > >> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane > >> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives and/or Steel Ball Bearings, among > >> >> other things, is contributing to animal deaths in that way like > >> >> everyone else does. We all also contribute to wildlife deaths > >> >> by the use of paper and wood products, roads and buildings, > >> >> electicity etc... > >> > > >> >Goalpost move disallowed. You said that it is not possible > >> >to use any of those products without contributing > >> > >> I listed products which contain animal by-products, > > > >With the claim that vegans have to avoid all the products on your > >list, meaning that there are no vegan versions of any of them. > > I'll clarify it. In the future, I'll say: Thank you. > "What they try to avoid are products which provide life > (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > in order to be successful:" > > and that will keep any vegan items off the list. To me that would still imply that all the versions of all of the items on your list contain animal by products. How about. "What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals. Animal ingredients are often used to manufacture the following commodities.... > >> and you are > >> dishonestly trying to pretend it's okay that YOU contribute to many > >> of them, simply because you might buy a vegan version of one or > >> two of the products. > > > >I didn't claim that at all, merely that the 1 error I found destroys > >the credibility of the source (ie you). > > So you're saying if you have made even 1 error yourself then > your own credibility is destroyed as well? Or does it only work that > way for other people? The specific issue here is that the list you compiled contains at least 1 false entry and that leads me to question the method you used to compile the list. Yes, I suppose if I make a false claim that weakens my credibility. Perhaps it was a little OTT for me to claim one error destroys your credibility completely. > How about now that I've corrected the > problem? If you're the master of credibility, how has mine changed > for having complied with your request? > > >> Just as you don't get to claim browny points > >> for respecting the lives of potential animals you want to prevent > >> from having any life at all, > > > >We've been over this many times. I appropriate "browny points" for > >avoiding contributing to what I consider "animal abuse". > > 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. > >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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 24 Jun 2006 17:11:27 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >With the claim that vegans have to avoid all the products on your >> >list, meaning that there are no vegan versions of any of them. >> >> I'll clarify it. In the future, I'll say: > >Thank you. You're welcome. >> "What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >> in order to be successful:" >> >> and that will keep any vegan items off the list. > >To me that would still imply that all the versions of all of the >items on your list contain animal by products. You would be wrong. It implys that some versions of some of the items might not. >How about. > >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and >death) for farm animals. Animal ingredients are often used >to manufacture the following commodities.... LOL..."often used". The way I said it is enough to encourage anyone who cares to check into it, and suggests that there may be vegan forms of some of the items, which is the way it is. Nice try though :-) >> >> and you are >> >> dishonestly trying to pretend it's okay that YOU contribute to many >> >> of them, simply because you might buy a vegan version of one or >> >> two of the products. >> > >> >I didn't claim that at all, merely that the 1 error I found destroys >> >the credibility of the source (ie you). >> >> So you're saying if you have made even 1 error yourself then >> your own credibility is destroyed as well? Or does it only work that >> way for other people? > >The specific issue here is that the list you Ah...only for other people, you mean. >compiled contains at least > >1 false entry and that leads me to question the method you used to >compile the list. Yes, I suppose if I make a false claim that weakens >my credibility. Perhaps it was a little OTT for me to claim one error >destroys your credibility completely. Yes, when the finger swings back your way it sometimes makes it easier to see what you were pointing at. Weird huh? >> How about now that I've corrected the >> problem? If you're the master of credibility, how has mine changed >> for having complied with your request? Here we see that you're quick enough to condemn, but even after you've gotten what you wanted you're slow to appreciate it, if you're capable of appreciating it at all. >> >> Just as you don't get to claim browny points >> >> for respecting the lives of potential animals you want to prevent >> >> from having any life at all, >> > >> >We've been over this many times. I appropriate "browny points" for >> >avoiding contributing to what I consider "animal abuse". >> >> 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. Thanks. 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. 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 your objections have been pretty much whittled down to: "the wrongness of their deaths" - Goo You "aras" all agree with Goo that: "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo because you all agree that: "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo BUT! As yet none of you have been able to explain exactly what "the moral harm" or the "wrongness" happen to be...you only insist that they exist and amusingly take it for granted that everyone will believe you that the wrongness exists, even though you can't even say exactly what it is. SO! A person who doesn't just take the word of dishonest and absurd people like you "aras" that a wrongess exists even though you can't say what it is, is forced to guess for him/herself what "wrongness" you Goos might think you have in mind...if any. AND! Such a person is very likely to conclude that you are crying about the fact that their lives are taken from them...that there is moral harm in them no longer getting to live. BUT! What you "aras" want, would not provide them with longer lives, or better lives, or anything at all...in fact it would *prevent* them from having any. You don't want them to have longer lives ....in fact you don't want "them" to have any lives. SO! The wrongness of killing them obviously can NOT be that it causes them to no longer live since you don't want them to have any life at all, so we are left to conclude that there is nothing morally wrong with raising them to eat because we don't even have any wrongess to consider. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
h@. wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2006 17:11:27 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > >> >With the claim that vegans have to avoid all the products on your > >> >list, meaning that there are no vegan versions of any of them. > >> > >> I'll clarify it. In the future, I'll say: > > > >Thank you. > > You're welcome. > > >> "What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >> in order to be successful:" > >> > >> and that will keep any vegan items off the list. > > > >To me that would still imply that all the versions of all of the > >items on your list contain animal by products. > > You would be wrong. It implys that some versions of some > of the items might not. At the very least it's ambiguous. It suggests that the following items contain animal products, not merely that some or most versions of them do. > >How about. > > > >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and > >death) for farm animals. Animal ingredients are often used > >to manufacture the following commodities.... > > LOL..."often used". What's wrong with it? It's accurate enough. > The way I said it is enough to encourage > anyone who cares to check into it, and suggests that there may > be vegan forms of some of the items, It suggests that there are no vegan versions. That's the point. If you want to maintain anti-vegan spin how about "Most so-called vegans support the life (and death) of farm animals by buying products such as..." > which is the way it is. Nice > try though :-) > > >> >> and you are > >> >> dishonestly trying to pretend it's okay that YOU contribute to many > >> >> of them, simply because you might buy a vegan version of one or > >> >> two of the products. > >> > > >> >I didn't claim that at all, merely that the 1 error I found destroys > >> >the credibility of the source (ie you). > >> > >> So you're saying if you have made even 1 error yourself then > >> your own credibility is destroyed as well? Or does it only work that > >> way for other people? > > > >The specific issue here is that the list you > > Ah...only for other people, you mean. > > >compiled contains at least > > > >1 false entry and that leads me to question the method you used to > >compile the list. Yes, I suppose if I make a false claim that weakens > >my credibility. Perhaps it was a little OTT for me to claim one error > >destroys your credibility completely. > > Yes, when the finger swings back your way it sometimes makes > it easier to see what you were pointing at. Weird huh? Mea culpa. > >> How about now that I've corrected the > >> problem? If you're the master of credibility, how has mine changed > >> for having complied with your request? > > Here we see that you're quick enough to condemn, but even after > you've gotten what you wanted you're slow to appreciate it, if you're > capable of appreciating it at all. Yes, I was overly quick to condemn and I apologise for that. Your However, your statement is still misleading despite your "correction". > >> >> Just as you don't get to claim browny points > >> >> for respecting the lives of potential animals you want to prevent > >> >> from having any life at all, > >> > > >> >We've been over this many times. I appropriate "browny points" for > >> >avoiding contributing to what I consider "animal abuse". > >> > >> 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. > Thanks. What for? > 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. > 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. > 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 |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 26 Jun 2006 17:04:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>h@. wrote: >> On 24 Jun 2006 17:11:27 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >With the claim that vegans have to avoid all the products on your >> >> >list, meaning that there are no vegan versions of any of them. >> >> >> >> I'll clarify it. In the future, I'll say: >> > >> >Thank you. >> >> You're welcome. >> >> >> "What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >> >> in order to be successful:" >> >> >> >> and that will keep any vegan items off the list. >> > >> >To me that would still imply that all the versions of all of the >> >items on your list contain animal by products. >> >> You would be wrong. It implys that some versions of some >> of the items might not. > >At the very least it's ambiguous. It suggests that the following >items contain animal products, not merely that some or most >versions of them do. > >> >How about. >> > >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and >> >death) for farm animals. Animal ingredients are often used >> >to manufacture the following commodities.... >> >> LOL..."often used". > >What's wrong with it? It's accurate enough. > >> The way I said it is enough to encourage >> anyone who cares to check into it, and suggests that there may >> be vegan forms of some of the items, > >It suggests that there are no vegan versions. That's the point. >If you want to maintain anti-vegan spin how about "Most so-called >vegans support the life (and death) of farm animals by buying >products such as..." > >> which is the way it is. Nice >> try though :-) >> >> >> >> and you are >> >> >> dishonestly trying to pretend it's okay that YOU contribute to many >> >> >> of them, simply because you might buy a vegan version of one or >> >> >> two of the products. >> >> > >> >> >I didn't claim that at all, merely that the 1 error I found destroys >> >> >the credibility of the source (ie you). >> >> >> >> So you're saying if you have made even 1 error yourself then >> >> your own credibility is destroyed as well? Or does it only work that >> >> way for other people? >> > >> >The specific issue here is that the list you >> >> Ah...only for other people, you mean. >> >> >compiled contains at least >> > >> >1 false entry and that leads me to question the method you used to >> >compile the list. Yes, I suppose if I make a false claim that weakens >> >my credibility. Perhaps it was a little OTT for me to claim one error >> >destroys your credibility completely. >> >> Yes, when the finger swings back your way it sometimes makes >> it easier to see what you were pointing at. Weird huh? > >Mea culpa. > >> >> How about now that I've corrected the >> >> problem? If you're the master of credibility, how has mine changed >> >> for having complied with your request? >> >> Here we see that you're quick enough to condemn, but even after >> you've gotten what you wanted you're slow to appreciate it, if you're >> capable of appreciating it at all. > >Yes, I was overly quick to condemn and I apologise for that. Your >However, your statement is still misleading despite your "correction". No it's not. It suggests that those items usually contain animal by-products which they do, but that it may be possible to find some of them that do not. That's the way it is, so my correction is more than adequate. >> >> >> Just as you don't get to claim browny points >> >> >> for respecting the lives of potential animals you want to prevent >> >> >> from having any life at all, >> >> > >> >> >We've been over this many times. I appropriate "browny points" for >> >> >avoiding contributing to what I consider "animal abuse". >> >> >> >> 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. >> 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. >> 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. >> 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 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
Spammed newsgroups removed:
dh@. wrote: > On 26 Jun 2006 17:04:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > >h@. wrote: > >> On 24 Jun 2006 17:11:27 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> > >> >> >With the claim that vegans have to avoid all the products on your > >> >> >list, meaning that there are no vegan versions of any of them. > >> >> > >> >> I'll clarify it. In the future, I'll say: > >> > > >> >Thank you. > >> > >> You're welcome. > >> > >> >> "What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >> >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >> >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >> >> in order to be successful:" > >> >> > >> >> and that will keep any vegan items off the list. > >> > > >> >To me that would still imply that all the versions of all of the > >> >items on your list contain animal by products. > >> > >> You would be wrong. It implys that some versions of some > >> of the items might not. > > > >At the very least it's ambiguous. It suggests that the following > >items contain animal products, not merely that some or most > >versions of them do. > > > >> >How about. > >> > > >> >"What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and > >> >death) for farm animals. Animal ingredients are often used > >> >to manufacture the following commodities.... > >> > >> LOL..."often used". > > > >What's wrong with it? It's accurate enough. > > > >> The way I said it is enough to encourage > >> anyone who cares to check into it, and suggests that there may > >> be vegan forms of some of the items, > > > >It suggests that there are no vegan versions. That's the point. > >If you want to maintain anti-vegan spin how about "Most so-called > >vegans support the life (and death) of farm animals by buying > >products such as..." > > > >> which is the way it is. Nice > >> try though :-) > >> > >> >> >> and you are > >> >> >> dishonestly trying to pretend it's okay that YOU contribute to many > >> >> >> of them, simply because you might buy a vegan version of one or > >> >> >> two of the products. > >> >> > > >> >> >I didn't claim that at all, merely that the 1 error I found destroys > >> >> >the credibility of the source (ie you). > >> >> > >> >> So you're saying if you have made even 1 error yourself then > >> >> your own credibility is destroyed as well? Or does it only work that > >> >> way for other people? > >> > > >> >The specific issue here is that the list you > >> > >> Ah...only for other people, you mean. > >> > >> >compiled contains at least > >> > > >> >1 false entry and that leads me to question the method you used to > >> >compile the list. Yes, I suppose if I make a false claim that weakens > >> >my credibility. Perhaps it was a little OTT for me to claim one error > >> >destroys your credibility completely. > >> > >> Yes, when the finger swings back your way it sometimes makes > >> it easier to see what you were pointing at. Weird huh? > > > >Mea culpa. > > > >> >> How about now that I've corrected the > >> >> problem? If you're the master of credibility, how has mine changed > >> >> for having complied with your request? > >> > >> Here we see that you're quick enough to condemn, but even after > >> you've gotten what you wanted you're slow to appreciate it, if you're > >> capable of appreciating it at all. > > > >Yes, I was overly quick to condemn and I apologise for that. Your > >However, your statement is still misleading despite your "correction". > > No it's not. It suggests that those items usually contain animal > by-products which they do, but that it may be possible to find some > of them that do not. Wrong. > That's the way it is, so my correction is more > than adequate. > > >> >> >> Just as you don't get to claim browny points > >> >> >> for respecting the lives of potential animals you want to prevent > >> >> >> from having any life at all, > >> >> > > >> >> >We've been over this many times. I appropriate "browny points" for > >> >> >avoiding contributing to what I consider "animal abuse". > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> 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. > >> 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. > >> 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! > 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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 27 Jun 2006 11:00:14 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Spammed newsgroups removed: > >dh@. wrote: >> On 26 Jun 2006 17:04:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >h@. wrote: >> >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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 >> 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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
dh@. wrote: > On 27 Jun 2006 11:00:14 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > >Spammed newsgroups removed: > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On 26 Jun 2006 17:04:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> >h@. wrote: > > >> >> >> 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. > >> >> 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. > > >> >> 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. > >> 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. BTW I also advocate applying those criteria to non-animal foods. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 29 Jun 2006 07:27:14 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On 27 Jun 2006 11:00:14 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >Spammed newsgroups removed: >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> >> On 26 Jun 2006 17:04:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >h@. wrote: >> >> >> >> >> 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)? 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'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. >> >> >> 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. 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. 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. >BTW I also advocate applying those criteria to non-animal foods. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan,uk.politics.animals,talk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
"nemo" > wrote in message
.uk... >> > · Vegans >> ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's >> wrong with their beliefs. > > Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal > products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't > eat beef. It's all personal choice. Jews and Muslims don't really do it through personal choice though, do they. They do it because somebody wrote it in a book 2,000 years ago and they just do it because their parents told them to. Pete |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
dh@. 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. > >> >> >> 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. > > >> >> >> 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, 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 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. I also haven't seen you show any concern regarding the environmental impacts. > >BTW I also advocate applying those criteria to non-animal foods. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
On 30 Jun 2006 11:38:42 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. 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 |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|