Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-08-2006, 06:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default Desperate to support "ar"


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

[email protected] 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.



  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-08-2006, 06:41 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default Desperate to support "ar"


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:20:32 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

[email protected] 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.


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-08-2006, 07:58 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17
Default Desperate to support "ar"

[email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:57:20 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

Pat Gardiner wrote:
[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:29:36 +0100, "Old Codger"
wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:33:46 +0100, "Pat Gardiner"
wrote:


"Jim Webster" wrote in
message ...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

[email protected] 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]


  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-08-2006, 11:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3
Default 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


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2006, 01:04 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Desperate to support "ar"

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:41:38 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:20:32 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

[email protected] 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
Support a Public Inquest into the many continuing deaths atWinnipeg's Health Sciences Center program titled, "Comfort Care" - deprivedneeded medications while being poisoned to die - Let's save lives the late Jennie Kinal, the town slut of Winnipeg General Cooking 0 28-04-2016 09:15 PM
"Google Groups does not currently support posting to the following usenet groups: 'rec.food.cooking!'" John Kuthe[_2_] General Cooking 27 15-12-2011 05:12 PM
FDA says "no" in Tomato connection to reduced cancer risk: From "Sham vs. Wham: The Health Insider" D. Vegan 0 11-07-2007 05:29 PM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017