Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:20:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ... >> >> "Dutch" > wrote in message >> ... >>> >>> <dh@.> asked >>> > Why do you think we get more browny points for >>> > applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >>> > of the Larder? >>> >>> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we see fit, >>> breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into patties, if that's >>> what we want to do, but don't add insult to injury by proclaiming that by >>> doing so we are doing them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says we >>> ought to do. That only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the >>> question once again, why do you find it necessary to spread this gospel? >>> What deep-rooted guilt you must feel. >>> >> >> but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt or not? > >Like most things, it has relevance in this context. > >> eat meat if you like it > >Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour. As yet you still haven't been able to explain why their lives shouldn't be given as much or more consideration than their deaths. You've also proven to have no clue how the method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 20:22:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:11:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:50:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> asked >>>>>> Why do you think we get more browny points for >>>>>> applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >>>>>> of the Larder? >>>>> >>>>>"The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we see >>>>>fit, >>>>>breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into patties, if that's >>>>>what we want to do, but don't add insult to injury by proclaiming that >>>>>by >>>>>doing so we are doing them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says we >>>>>ought to do. >>>> >>>> We should consider when the animals have lives of positive value >>>> as well as when they don't, if we're going to think openly about human >>>> influence on animals. >>> >>>What do you mean by "consider" exactly? That's a vague word. >> . . . >> >>>What are you doing *precisely* when you "consider the animals position"? >> . . . >> >>>explain exactly what you mean by "consider". >> . . . >> >>>What do you mean "consider"? >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> Main Entry: con·sid·er >> . . . >> >> 1 : to think about carefully: as a : to think of especially with regard to >> taking >> some action >> . . . >> b : to take into account >> >> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/consider > >I know what the word consider means, I meant describe the specific thought >process involved in "considering the animals position". When I "consider the >animals position" it means to me that I concern myself with how they are >treated, I hope that they are not made to suffer. What does it mean to you? That I hope life was of positive value for them, meaning it was an experience worth having for them. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:13:03 +0100, "Jim Webster" > wrote:
> >"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >> >> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >> ... >> > >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message >> > ... >> >> >> >> <dh@.> asked >> >> > Why do you think we get more browny points for >> >> > applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >> >> > of the Larder? >> >> >> >> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we see >fit, >> >> breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into patties, if >that's >> >> what we want to do, but don't add insult to injury by proclaiming that >by >> >> doing so we are doing them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says >we >> >> ought to do. That only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the >> >> question once again, why do you find it necessary to spread this >gospel? >> >> What deep-rooted guilt you must feel. >> >> >> > >> > but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt or not? >> >> Like most things, it has relevance in this context. > >but it isn't worth wasting however many years bickering about. You should be able to tell by now it's an aspect of the situation that "aras" are desperate not to lose control of. >Wander about the real world and no one cares That's how they want it. The last thing "aras" would want--and they make it quite obvious--would be for people to understand and appreciate that some animals raised for food have lives of positive value. Even being a farmer you may still not be able to appreciate it youself, or you may have understood it your entire life and just don't think it's worth discussing, but you should at least see some significance in the "ar" desperation to prevent the idea from being widely appreciated. >given the situation in the world with probable global warming, a nice war >brewing in the middle east and society struggling to cope with energy >distribution this discussion verges on escapism, especially when it has been >going round and round for so long It's an aspect of the situation that I believe everyone should take into consideration, and "aras" are desperate that they do not. >> > eat meat if you like it >> >> Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour. > >now you are back on ideology again, >The animal is there >it is being looked after >its life expectancy is higher than it would be in the wild because the wild >is pretty rough Dutch has pretended to understand such things in the past: "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal." "Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's obvious." but after what were most likely some amusing email reprimands from Goo, Dutch now appears to be trying to disagree with himself about the significance of life for livestock. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:57:20 +0100, "Old Codger" > wrote:
>Pat Gardiner wrote: >> <dh@.> wrote in message >> ... >>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:29:36 +0100, "Old Codger" >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:33:46 +0100, "Pat Gardiner" >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in >>>>>> message ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <dh@.> asked >>>>>>>>> Why do you think we get more browny points for >>>>>>>>> applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >>>>>>>>> of the Larder? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we >>>>>>>> see fit, breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into >>>>>>>> patties, if that's what we want to do, but don't add insult to >>>>>>>> injury by proclaiming that by doing so we are doing them a >>>>>>>> favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says we ought to do. That >>>>>>>> only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the question >>>>>>>> once again, why do you find it necessary to spread this gospel? >>>>>>>> What deep-rooted guilt you must feel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt >>>>>>> or not? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> eat meat if you like it >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think it is a proper activity for the President of the >>>>>> Cumbria Land and Business Association to be spending his days >>>>>> agressively arguing with animal rights and welfare activists. >>>>> >>>>> Do you think he should never argue with them in public forums? >>>>> Do you >>>>> think no one should ever oppose them in public forums? >>>>> >>>>>> Can't you find some work to do? >>>>> >>>>> Pointing out the dishonesty and absurdity involved with "ar" is >>>>> a respectable thing that MORE people should be doing, not less! It >>>>> seems that anyone who >>>>> supports the raising of domestic animals, and especially decent >>>>> animal welfare, should oppose "ar" when it's convenient to do >>>>> so...maybe you should try it yourself instead of complaining >>>>> because someone else does it. >>>>> >>>>>> You claim to be a working farmer. >>>>> >>>>> Then it's a nice but strange change to see a farmer oppose "ar". >>>>> MORE farmers should do it, not less! Duh!!! >>>>> >>>>>> BTW, your signature is defamatory. >>>>> >>>>> If it's true even so, then he's not the one at fault. >>>> >>>> Pat has been raving about bent vets for over six years and, to >>>> date, has had >>>> no discernable effect so I think Jim's sig is the truth. Pat's >>>> legal knowledge seems very limited, even for an ex docker. >>> >>> Sounds like Pat has no complaint then. I don't know anything >>> about bent vets, by I do feel it's way past time that farmers started >>> sticking up for themselves. Some of the animals raised for food >>> have decent lives of positive value, and I believe it's way past >>> time that farmers stop letting "aras" get away with their lying to >>> the contrary. If they're really as stupid and ignorant as they claim, >>> or even more so if they're aware of the truth and are deliberately >>> lying about it (as I believe is often the case), the truth should be >>> used to oppose their lies until everyone sees them for the liars >>> that they are, imo. >> >> Just for the record, and to put Brian Burgess's nonsense into >> context... >> Far from being an ex-docker, honourable that that occupation is, >> despite the obvious slight by Brian. I find that surprising for an >> Essex man, who should know better. However he seems to have some chip >> on his shoulder about his last employer...I don't know the >> details...probably just a whinger who collects his pension and >> complains endlessly > >"...I don't know the details.." Rather surprising since you think you know >so much. Haven't your contacts given you that piece of information or isn't >your imagination good enough to invent it to go with the rest of your >inventions? > >> I founded and ran 17 companies including PLC's and joint companies >> with overseas companies before retiring still in my 40s. I was >> usually both the majority shareholder and the Chiarman. No busters, >> no bad debts - an impecable record of which I'm proud. Be my guest - >> check. >> My full name is George Patrick Gardiner and a quick search of Google >> Groups and Companies House will confirm the above. > >Just search Google Groups, read Pat's posts and then make up your own mind >on George Patrick Gardiner, if that *is* his real name. I suspect you might >conclude that his claims are as fanciful as the rest of his posts. > >> Most of these people are the kind of losers that infest British >> agriculture and make it a laughing stock throughout the world. > >See what I mean, fanciful. > >> In fairness Brian is just a malcontent recruited by Jim Webster, >> President of the Cumbria Branch of the Country Land and Business >> Association as a fall guy. > >Not recruited by anyone and Jim does not post as anything but an ordinary >farmer, which he is. Pat is the one who keeps bringing that up. >> A quick check will reveal that Brian loiters about uk.idiot.legal and >> suffers from the delusion that he understands the law. > >Not at all, I have some understanding on a few aspects of the law, not all >of the law by any means. > >> He is just another victim of Jim Webster. Take it easy on him. I do. > >Fanciful again. So much BS. Why? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:43:16 +0100, "Pat Gardiner" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:29:36 +0100, "Old Codger" >> > wrote: >> >>>dh@. wrote: >>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:33:46 +0100, "Pat Gardiner" >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in >>>>> message ... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <dh@.> asked >>>>>>>> Why do you think we get more browny points for >>>>>>>> applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >>>>>>>> of the Larder? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we >>>>>>> see fit, breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into >>>>>>> patties, if that's what we want to do, but don't add insult to >>>>>>> injury by proclaiming that by doing so we are doing them a favor, >>>>>>> as "The Logic of the Larder" says we ought to do. That only >>>>>>> diminishes us as human beings. This raises the question once >>>>>>> again, why do you find it necessary to spread this gospel? What >>>>>>> deep-rooted guilt you must feel. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt or >>>>>> not? >>>>>> >>>>>> eat meat if you like it >>>>> >>>>> I don't think it is a proper activity for the President of the >>>>> Cumbria Land and Business Association to be spending his days >>>>> agressively arguing with animal rights and welfare activists. >>>> >>>> Do you think he should never argue with them in public forums? Do >>>> you >>>> think no one should ever oppose them in public forums? >>>> >>>>> Can't you find some work to do? >>>> >>>> Pointing out the dishonesty and absurdity involved with "ar" is a >>>> respectable thing that MORE people should be doing, not less! It >>>> seems that anyone who >>>> supports the raising of domestic animals, and especially decent >>>> animal welfare, should oppose "ar" when it's convenient to do >>>> so...maybe you should try it yourself instead of complaining because >>>> someone else does it. >>>> >>>>> You claim to be a working farmer. >>>> >>>> Then it's a nice but strange change to see a farmer oppose "ar". >>>> MORE farmers should do it, not less! Duh!!! >>>> >>>>> BTW, your signature is defamatory. >>>> >>>> If it's true even so, then he's not the one at fault. >>> >>>Pat has been raving about bent vets for over six years and, to date, has >>>had >>>no discernable effect so I think Jim's sig is the truth. Pat's legal >>>knowledge seems very limited, even for an ex docker. >> >> Sounds like Pat has no complaint then. I don't know anything >> about bent vets, by I do feel it's way past time that farmers started >> sticking up for themselves. Some of the animals raised for food >> have decent lives of positive value, and I believe it's way past >> time that farmers stop letting "aras" get away with their lying to >> the contrary. If they're really as stupid and ignorant as they claim, >> or even more so if they're aware of the truth and are deliberately >> lying about it (as I believe is often the case), the truth should be >> used to oppose their lies until everyone sees them for the liars >> that they are, imo. > >Just for the record, and to put Brian Burgess's nonsense into context... > >Far from being an ex-docker, honourable that that occupation is, despite the >obvious slight by Brian. I find that surprising for an Essex man, who should >know better. However he seems to have some chip on his shoulder about his >last employer...I don't know the details...probably just a whinger who >collects his pension and complains endlessly > >I founded and ran 17 companies including PLC's and joint companies with >overseas companies before retiring still in my 40s. I was usually both the >majority shareholder and the Chiarman. No busters, no bad debts - an >impecable record of which I'm proud. Be my guest - check. > >My full name is George Patrick Gardiner and a quick search of Google Groups >and Companies House will confirm the above. > >Most of these people are the kind of losers that infest British agriculture >and make it a laughing stock throughout the world. Everyone can't have the success you had, if it's all for real. I still feel that people involved with agriculture should point out the dishonesty of "aras" so everyone understands though... >In fairness Brian is just a malcontent recruited by Jim Webster, President >of the Cumbria Branch of the Country Land and Business Association as a fall >guy. > >A quick check will reveal that Brian loiters about uk.idiot.legal and >suffers from the delusion that he understands the law. > >He is just another victim of Jim Webster. Take it easy on him. I do. What they complain about could still be a legitimate complaint, regardless of how they do and don't have influence on each other. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message >> ... >> > >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message >> > ... >> >> >> >> <dh@.> asked >> >> > Why do you think we get more browny points for >> >> > applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >> >> > of the Larder? >> >> >> >> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we see > fit, >> >> breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into patties, if > that's >> >> what we want to do, but don't add insult to injury by proclaiming that > by >> >> doing so we are doing them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says > we >> >> ought to do. That only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the >> >> question once again, why do you find it necessary to spread this > gospel? >> >> What deep-rooted guilt you must feel. >> >> >> > >> > but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt or >> > not? >> >> Like most things, it has relevance in this context. > > but it isn't worth wasting however many years bickering about. Wander > about > the real world and no one cares I decide what is worth my time, I don't abdicate that judgment to anyone. > given the situation in the world with probable global warming, a nice war > brewing in the middle east and society struggling to cope with energy > distribution this discussion verges on escapism, especially when it has > been > going round and round for so long What's wrong with escapism? >> > eat meat if you like it >> >> Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour. > > now you are back on ideology again, That's the theme of alt.animals.vegetarian. > The animal is there It's not just "there", we arrange for it to be there. > it is being looked after I hope so. > its life expectancy is higher than it would be in the wild because the > wild > is pretty rough The animal is not a wild specie, didn't come from the wild, and under no circumstances would have come into existence in the wild, so that is an illegitimate comparison. That's just a watered-down version of the Logic of Larder where we claim that we do livestock animals a favour by bringing them into existence. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:20:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> >>>> <dh@.> asked >>>> > Why do you think we get more browny points for >>>> > applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >>>> > of the Larder? >>>> >>>> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we see >>>> fit, >>>> breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into patties, if >>>> that's >>>> what we want to do, but don't add insult to injury by proclaiming that >>>> by >>>> doing so we are doing them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says >>>> we >>>> ought to do. That only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the >>>> question once again, why do you find it necessary to spread this >>>> gospel? >>>> What deep-rooted guilt you must feel. >>>> >>> >>> but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt or not? >> >>Like most things, it has relevance in this context. >> >>> eat meat if you like it >> >>Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour. > > As yet you still haven't been able to explain why their lives shouldn't > be > given as much or more consideration than their deaths. Does "give their lives consideration" equal "believe that we are doing them a favour by wanting to eat their flesh"? >You've also proven > to have no clue how the method of husbandry determines whether or not > the life has positive or negative value to the animal. How did I prove that? By refusing to think that we are doing animals a favour by wanting to eat them? Explain. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:57:20 +0100, "Old Codger" > > wrote: > >> Pat Gardiner wrote: >>> <dh@.> wrote in message >>> ... >>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:29:36 +0100, "Old Codger" >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:33:46 +0100, "Pat Gardiner" >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in >>>>>>> message ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <dh@.> asked >>>>>>>>>> Why do you think we get more browny points for >>>>>>>>>> applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >>>>>>>>>> of the Larder? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as >>>>>>>>> we see fit, breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them >>>>>>>>> into patties, if that's what we want to do, but don't add >>>>>>>>> insult to injury by proclaiming that by doing so we are doing >>>>>>>>> them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says we ought to >>>>>>>>> do. That only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the >>>>>>>>> question once again, why do you find it necessary to spread >>>>>>>>> this gospel? What deep-rooted guilt you must feel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels >>>>>>>> guilt or not? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eat meat if you like it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think it is a proper activity for the President of the >>>>>>> Cumbria Land and Business Association to be spending his days >>>>>>> agressively arguing with animal rights and welfare activists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you think he should never argue with them in public forums? >>>>>> Do you >>>>>> think no one should ever oppose them in public forums? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Can't you find some work to do? >>>>>> >>>>>> Pointing out the dishonesty and absurdity involved with "ar" >>>>>> is a respectable thing that MORE people should be doing, not >>>>>> less! It seems that anyone who >>>>>> supports the raising of domestic animals, and especially decent >>>>>> animal welfare, should oppose "ar" when it's convenient to do >>>>>> so...maybe you should try it yourself instead of complaining >>>>>> because someone else does it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You claim to be a working farmer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then it's a nice but strange change to see a farmer oppose >>>>>> "ar". MORE farmers should do it, not less! Duh!!! >>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, your signature is defamatory. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it's true even so, then he's not the one at fault. >>>>> >>>>> Pat has been raving about bent vets for over six years and, to >>>>> date, has had >>>>> no discernable effect so I think Jim's sig is the truth. Pat's >>>>> legal knowledge seems very limited, even for an ex docker. >>>> >>>> Sounds like Pat has no complaint then. I don't know anything >>>> about bent vets, by I do feel it's way past time that farmers >>>> started sticking up for themselves. Some of the animals raised for >>>> food >>>> have decent lives of positive value, and I believe it's way past >>>> time that farmers stop letting "aras" get away with their lying to >>>> the contrary. If they're really as stupid and ignorant as they >>>> claim, or even more so if they're aware of the truth and are >>>> deliberately lying about it (as I believe is often the case), the >>>> truth should be used to oppose their lies until everyone sees them >>>> for the liars that they are, imo. >>> >>> Just for the record, and to put Brian Burgess's nonsense into >>> context... >>> Far from being an ex-docker, honourable that that occupation is, >>> despite the obvious slight by Brian. I find that surprising for an >>> Essex man, who should know better. However he seems to have some >>> chip on his shoulder about his last employer...I don't know the >>> details...probably just a whinger who collects his pension and >>> complains endlessly >> >> "...I don't know the details.." Rather surprising since you think >> you know so much. Haven't your contacts given you that piece of >> information or isn't your imagination good enough to invent it to go >> with the rest of your inventions? >> >>> I founded and ran 17 companies including PLC's and joint companies >>> with overseas companies before retiring still in my 40s. I was >>> usually both the majority shareholder and the Chiarman. No busters, >>> no bad debts - an impecable record of which I'm proud. Be my guest - >>> check. >>> My full name is George Patrick Gardiner and a quick search of Google >>> Groups and Companies House will confirm the above. >> >> Just search Google Groups, read Pat's posts and then make up your >> own mind on George Patrick Gardiner, if that *is* his real name. I >> suspect you might conclude that his claims are as fanciful as the >> rest of his posts. >> >>> Most of these people are the kind of losers that infest British >>> agriculture and make it a laughing stock throughout the world. >> >> See what I mean, fanciful. >> >>> In fairness Brian is just a malcontent recruited by Jim Webster, >>> President of the Cumbria Branch of the Country Land and Business >>> Association as a fall guy. >> >> Not recruited by anyone and Jim does not post as anything but an >> ordinary farmer, which he is. > > Pat is the one who keeps bringing that up. > >>> A quick check will reveal that Brian loiters about uk.idiot.legal >>> and suffers from the delusion that he understands the law. >> >> Not at all, I have some understanding on a few aspects of the law, >> not all of the law by any means. >> >>> He is just another victim of Jim Webster. Take it easy on him. I do. >> >> Fanciful again. > > So much BS. Why? Precisely! -- Old Codger e-mail use reply to field What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003] |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > > What's wrong with escapism? Absolutely nothing, provided that it is accepted as such. Wandering off for a days quiet fishing, whatever, fine. When it becomes too much part of life it is iffy > > >> > eat meat if you like it > >> > >> Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour. > > > > now you are back on ideology again, > > That's the theme of alt.animals.vegetarian. but not the theme of uba, so I've cut it from the groups, far too many cross posts, so I'll leave you all to it > > > The animal is there > > It's not just "there", we arrange for it to be there. > > > it is being looked after > > I hope so. > > > its life expectancy is higher than it would be in the wild because the > > wild > > is pretty rough > > The animal is not a wild specie, didn't come from the wild, and under no > circumstances would have come into existence in the wild, pretty much like people then -- -- Jim Webster. Pat Gardiner, now in the sixth year of raving about bent vets and still no result |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Desperate to support "ar"
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:41:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:20:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>>"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> <dh@.> asked >>>>> > Why do you think we get more browny points for >>>>> > applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic >>>>> > of the Larder? >>>>> >>>>> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we see >>>>> fit, >>>>> breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into patties, if >>>>> that's >>>>> what we want to do, but don't add insult to injury by proclaiming that >>>>> by >>>>> doing so we are doing them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says >>>>> we >>>>> ought to do. That only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the >>>>> question once again, why do you find it necessary to spread this >>>>> gospel? >>>>> What deep-rooted guilt you must feel. >>>>> >>>> >>>> but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt or not? >>> >>>Like most things, it has relevance in this context. >>> >>>> eat meat if you like it >>> >>>Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour. >> >> As yet you still haven't been able to explain why their lives shouldn't >> be >> given as much or more consideration than their deaths. > >Does "give their lives consideration" equal "believe that we are doing them >a favour by wanting to eat their flesh"? No, by providing them with lives of positive value, though you appear unable to understand how that could be. >>You've also proven >> to have no clue how the method of husbandry determines whether or not >> the life has positive or negative value to the animal. > >How did I prove that? You referred to it as: "some mystical "value to the animals"", proving that you don't understand. >By refusing to think that we are doing animals a >favour by wanting to eat them? No. >Explain. You simply can't comprehend how life could have positive value to the animals. If you think you can, then explain a situation or more which you think would or does provide it, and then follow that by explaining why we should *not* take it into consideration when thinking about human influence on animals (don't include browny points). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|