On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:

>You thought you had found some really
>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",

I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
__________________________________________________ _______
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!

http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
.. . .
>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.

People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.

>That you
>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
>badly of your character and intellect.

People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
choice over veganism/"ar".

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>
>>You thought you had found some really
>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>
> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
>_________________________________________________ ________
>Here you come to save the day!
>[...]
>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
>make milk for their babies, not for people!
>[...]
>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
>your life cheese-free!
>
>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>. . .
>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
>
> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
>
>>That you
>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
>>badly of your character and intellect.
>
> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
>choice over veganism/"ar".

You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
taken into consideration. Yes this also reflects with many meat/non
meat eaters also insisting on animal welfare. Good all round I'd say.

Best way to protect animals from abuse, is not to breed them for
abuse. Go vegan.




"As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!"
Woody Guthrie

A prophet is only despised in his own country....
..........among his own relations...
............and in his own house

Ice wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>
>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
>>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
>>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>Here you come to save the day!
>>[...]
>>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
>>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
>>make milk for their babies, not for people!
>>[...]
>>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
>>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
>>your life cheese-free!
>>
>>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>. . .
>>
>>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
>>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
>>
>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
>>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
>>
>>
>>>That you
>>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
>>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
>>>badly of your character and intellect.
>>
>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
>>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
>>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
>>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
>>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
>>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
>>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
>>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
>>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
>>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
>>choice over veganism/"ar".
>
>
> You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
> taken into consideration.

No. "ar" does very little, if anything, to promote
animal welfare. Most meaningful improvements in animal
welfare come from non-"aras".

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Ice wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You thought you had found some really
> >>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
> >>
> >> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
> >>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
> >>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
> >>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
> >>________________________________________________ _________
> >>Here you come to save the day!
> >>[...]
> >>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
> >>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
> >>make milk for their babies, not for people!
> >>[...]
> >>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
> >>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
> >>your life cheese-free!
> >>
> >>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
> >>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >>. . .
> >>
> >>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
> >>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
> >>
> >> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> >>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
> >>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
> >>
> >>
> >>>That you
> >>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
> >>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
> >>>badly of your character and intellect.
> >>
> >> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
> >>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
> >>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
> >>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
> >>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
> >>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
> >>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
> >>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
> >>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
> >>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
> >>choice over veganism/"ar".
> >
> >
> > You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
> > taken into consideration.
>
> No. "ar" does very little, if anything, to promote
> animal welfare. Most meaningful improvements in animal
> welfare come from non-"aras".


I see.

So by your reckoning cannibals would be the leaders in human welfare.

On 25 Jul 2006 10:18:36 -0700, "shrubkiller" >
wrote:

>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> Ice wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>You thought you had found some really
>> >>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>> >>
>> >> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>> >>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
>> >>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
>> >>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
>> >>________________________________________________ _________
>> >>Here you come to save the day!
>> >>[...]
>> >>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
>> >>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
>> >>make milk for their babies, not for people!
>> >>[...]
>> >>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
>> >>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
>> >>your life cheese-free!
>> >>
>> >>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
>> >>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >>. . .
>> >>
>> >>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
>> >>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
>> >>
>> >> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> >>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
>> >>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>That you
>> >>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
>> >>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
>> >>>badly of your character and intellect.
>> >>
>> >> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
>> >>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
>> >>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
>> >>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
>> >>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
>> >>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
>> >>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
>> >>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
>> >>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
>> >>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
>> >>choice over veganism/"ar".
>> >
>> >
>> > You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
>> > taken into consideration.
>>
>> No. "ar" does very little, if anything, to promote
>> animal welfare. Most meaningful improvements in animal
>> welfare come from non-"aras".
>
>
>I see.
>
>So by your reckoning cannibals would be the leaders in human welfare.

Jonny is a cannibal!




"As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!"
Woody Guthrie

A prophet is only despised in his own country....
..........among his own relations...
............and in his own house

El Homo Gordo Muy ****witto whined:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Ice wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>
>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
>>>>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
>>>>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
>>>>______________________________________________ ___________
>>>>Here you come to save the day!
>>>>[...]
>>>>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
>>>>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
>>>>make milk for their babies, not for people!
>>>>[...]
>>>>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
>>>>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
>>>>your life cheese-free!
>>>>
>>>>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>. . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
>>>>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
>>>>
>>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>>>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
>>>>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That you
>>>>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
>>>>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
>>>>>badly of your character and intellect.
>>>>
>>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
>>>>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
>>>>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
>>>>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
>>>>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
>>>>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
>>>>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
>>>>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
>>>>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
>>>>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
>>>>choice over veganism/"ar".
>>>
>>>
>>>You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
>>>taken into consideration.
>>
>>No. "ar" does very little, if anything, to promote
>>animal welfare. Most meaningful improvements in animal
>>welfare come from non-"aras".
>
>
>
> I see.

If only you could see, El Homo Gordo, but alas! the
HIV has made you go blind.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:13:56 +0100, Ice > wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>
>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
>>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
>>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>Here you come to save the day!
>>[...]
>>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
>>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
>>make milk for their babies, not for people!
>>[...]
>>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
>>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
>>your life cheese-free!
>>
>>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>. . .
>>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
>>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
>>
>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
>>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
>>
>>>That you
>>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
>>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
>>>badly of your character and intellect.
>>
>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
>>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
>>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
>>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
>>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
>>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
>>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
>>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
>>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
>>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
>>choice over veganism/"ar".
>
>You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
>taken into consideration.

"ar" wouldn't provide domestic animals with better lives, longer
lives, or any lives at all.

>Yes this also reflects with many meat/non
>meat eaters also insisting on animal welfare. Good all round I'd say.
>
>Best way to protect animals from abuse, is not to breed them for
>abuse.

Agreed. The animals we eat should be provided with decent
lives of positive value, and humane deaths.

>Go vegan.

People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
with their lifestyle need to keep in mind that they can NOT do
so by going vegan.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> El Homo Gordo Muy ****witto whined:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>Ice wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>You thought you had found some really
> >>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
> >>>>
> >>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
> >>>>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
> >>>>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
> >>>>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
> >>>>______________________________________________ ___________
> >>>>Here you come to save the day!
> >>>>[...]
> >>>>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
> >>>>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
> >>>>make milk for their babies, not for people!
> >>>>[...]
> >>>>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
> >>>>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
> >>>>your life cheese-free!
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
> >>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >>>>. . .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
> >>>>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
> >>>>
> >>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> >>>>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
> >>>>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>That you
> >>>>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
> >>>>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
> >>>>>badly of your character and intellect.
> >>>>
> >>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
> >>>>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
> >>>>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
> >>>>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
> >>>>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
> >>>>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
> >>>>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
> >>>>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
> >>>>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
> >>>>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
> >>>>choice over veganism/"ar".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
> >>>taken into consideration.
> >>
> >>No. "ar" does very little, if anything, to promote
> >>animal welfare. Most meaningful improvements in animal
> >>welfare come from non-"aras".
> >
> >
> >
> > I see that you are a total loser Goo.
>
> If only you were the ONLY one who could see that, El Guapo, but alas! the
> entire usenet that once was blind, now sees me, the total loser that I am, for what I am.


There, there Goo.

You can continue to out stupid yourself. You're still the best at that.

El Homo Gordo Muy ****witto whined:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > El Homo Gordo Muy ****witto whined:
> >
> > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >
> > >>Ice wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>You thought you had found some really
> > >>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
> > >>>>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
> > >>>>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
> > >>>>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
> > >>>>______________________________________________ ___________
> > >>>>Here you come to save the day!
> > >>>>[...]
> > >>>>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
> > >>>>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
> > >>>>make milk for their babies, not for people!
> > >>>>[...]
> > >>>>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
> > >>>>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
> > >>>>your life cheese-free!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
> > >>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > >>>>. . .
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
> > >>>>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> > >>>>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
> > >>>>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>That you
> > >>>>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
> > >>>>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
> > >>>>>badly of your character and intellect.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
> > >>>>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
> > >>>>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
> > >>>>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
> > >>>>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
> > >>>>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
> > >>>>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
> > >>>>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
> > >>>>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
> > >>>>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
> > >>>>choice over veganism/"ar".
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
> > >>>taken into consideration.
> > >>
> > >>No. "ar" does very little, if anything, to promote
> > >>animal welfare. Most meaningful improvements in animal
> > >>welfare come from non-"aras".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I see that you are a total loser Leif.
> >
> > If only you were the ONLY one who could see that, El Guapo, but alas! the HIV has
> > made you go completely blind, and stupid.
>
>
> There, there Leif.

I'd say there *you* go, El Homo Gordo - right down the ********.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> El Homo Gordo Muy ****witto whined:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > El Homo Gordo Muy ****witto whined:
> > >
> > > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Ice wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:51:41 -0400, dh@. wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>You thought you had found some really
> > > >>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
> > > >>>>by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
> > > >>>>want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
> > > >>>>directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:
> > > >>>>______________________________________________ ___________
> > > >>>>Here you come to save the day!
> > > >>>>[...]
> > > >>>>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
> > > >>>>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
> > > >>>>make milk for their babies, not for people!
> > > >>>>[...]
> > > >>>>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
> > > >>>>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
> > > >>>>your life cheese-free!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
> > > >>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > > >>>>. . .
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>You could, instead, learn to think logically about this and
> > > >>>>>see that your ****witted story just doesn't hold water.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> > > >>>>livestock can NOT! do it by being vegan, and that's all
> > > >>>>there is to it. Crying about it won't change it, Goo.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>That you
> > > >>>>>don't - that you instead keep lying about others and
> > > >>>>>trying to "adjust" your stupid story - speaks very
> > > >>>>>badly of your character and intellect.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
> > > >>>>with their lifestyle need to be more conscientious consumers
> > > >>>>of animal products Goober, NOT vegans. As much as you/"aras"
> > > >>>>hate it, people are taking an interest in such things too Goo, which
> > > >>>>is why some will pay the extra $$$ to contribute to cage free egg
> > > >>>>production, and why it's worthwhile for egg producers to raise cage
> > > >>>>free hens...it all works together in opposition to the gross misnomer
> > > >>>>"ar", and certainly suggests that some alternatives might be
> > > >>>>ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination objective. Too
> > > >>>>bad for you/"aras" Goo, but decent AW might become the ethical
> > > >>>>choice over veganism/"ar".
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>You idiot bebop. It's because of AR we have the welfare of animals now
> > > >>>taken into consideration.
> > > >>
> > > >>No. "ar" does very little, if anything, to promote
> > > >>animal welfare. Most meaningful improvements in animal
> > > >>welfare come from non-"aras".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I see that you are a total loser Leif.
> > >
> > > If only you were the ONLY one who could see that, El Guapo, but alas! the HIV has
> > > made you go completely blind, and stupid.
> >
> >
> > There, there Leif.
>
> I'd say there *you* go, El Homo Gordo - right down the ********.






LOL!!!!

You wish!!........you poor vapid little homo greaseball.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>
>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>> by being vegan
>
>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the
>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more than
>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.

There's no reason to believe that.

>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.

People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle
by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan. Duh.

>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.

LOL...no, it's not.

>You are attempting to equivocate again.

That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to prevent
people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent AW:

"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

dh pointed out:

> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

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

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>
>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>by being vegan
>>
>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the
>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more than
>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>
>
> There's no reason to believe that.

There is *lots* of reason to believe it, ****wit. If
the entire world were "vegan", there would be no
pressure at all on producers to maximize the slaughter
rate.


>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>
>
> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle
> by being conscientious consumers,

There is no moral reason for the animals to exist. If
there are no livestock, no one needs to worry about
"contributing to decent lives for livestock", ****wit.
You write about that as if it is some end in itself,
but it isn't. We don't breed livestock into existence
in order to give "conscientious consumers" some object
for their compassion, you stupid ****; we breed them
into existence in order to use them.

You're so funny, ****wit. You keep pretending that if
we stopped breeding livestock, all these "conscientious
consumers" who want to "contribute to decent lives for
livestock" would feel cheated that the object of their
compassion no longer existed. That's really hilarious.



>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
>
>
> LOL...no, it's not.

Yes, ****wit, it is.


>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
>
>
> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do,

No, ****wit. You are the one equivocating. You also
are stupidly clinging to the false belief that wishing
to "contribute to decent lives for livestock" is some
kind of end in itself, and that if livestock no longer
exist, then "conscientious consumers" will be cheated.
That's just ****ing hilarious!

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>
>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>> by being vegan
>>
>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the
>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more than
>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>
> There's no reason to believe that.

There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to cause
meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of them
would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal being
processed per hour.

>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>
> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their
> lifestyle
> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan. Duh.

Logic of the Larder, discredited sophistry.

>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
>
> LOL...no, it's not.

Yes it is. Animal Welfare says we do something decent and good by treating
animals well, The Logic of the Larder says we do something decent and good
by causing animals to come into existence.

>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
>
> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to prevent
> people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent AW:

You are desperate to convince someone that The Logic of the Larder and
Animal Welfare are synonymous, you will fail.

> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch

That is correct, so what?
__________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Message-ID: >
>
> dh equivocated:
>> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
>> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
>> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

AW means better lives for animals. the Logic of the Larder means *lives* for
animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're the same
thing, they are completely different objectives. There is no legitimate
movement to promote "lives for farm animals", that is a pathetic joke.

> Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go
> blow
> your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯

That was an excellent suggestion.

dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>
> >You thought you had found some really
> >clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>
> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
> by being vegan, in spite of the fact that you/"aras" desperately
> want people to think they can. The following dishonesty was
> directed at children, and came from your heroes at PeTA:

If humans cant treat each other with compassion what hope have food
animales to any greater degree of sympathy than we extend to our own
species.
---
JL

On 26 Jul 2006 17:59:16 -0700, "JL" > wrote:

>
>Kevan Smith wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>> "JL" > wrote:
>>
>> > If humans cant treat each other with compassion what hope have food
>> > animales to any greater degree of sympathy than we extend to our own
>> > species.
>>
>> Humans can treat each other with compassion. You wouldn't be here if
>> that were so. Think about the great compassion your parents had for you,
>> and what would have happened had they not.
>
>Mans inhumanity to man is well documented, founded on greed and envy
>and a lack of comapssion, to not even mention the human animales
>'transcendental spiritual pride" ("next year in Jerusalem")
>
>Any individual may be a saint, but the species as a whole exhibts the
>basic traits of the animale it is, the terriitorial carnivore that
>devours its young, in war and opression both economic and social.
>
>I have no hope for the food animales being treated better than they
>are,

I sure do. I have much hope for it as a matter of fact. It would
just take a significant enough percentage of consumers to take
interest in providing decent lives for food animals, such as in the
case of cage free eggs.

>or stoped being used for food at all,

· 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 items containing animal by-products
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. ·

>until the human animale gains more respect for itself, which i
>doubt will happen any time soon, if at all.

Providing decent lives for food animals is a much more
realistic possibility, and could be much more easily achieved
than elimination of human violence toward other humans.
But! As you pointed out, most people don't spare livestock
much sympathy or even consideration. They could probably
be encouraged to, but that would work *against!* the "ar"
objective to eliminate animals raised for food, and suggests
that providing lives of positive value for food animals could
be considered ethically equivalent or superior to their
elimination. For years "aras" have been trying to opposed
the suggestion of contributing to decent AW instead of "ar":

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
.. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

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

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, an inept Goober desperately tried to support "ar":

>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh pointed out:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, an inept Goober desperately tried to support "ar":
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>
>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>>by being vegan
>>>
>>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the
>>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more than
>>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>>
>>
>> There's no reason to believe that.
>
>There is *lots* of reason to believe it, ****wit. If
>the entire world were "vegan"

We're not talking about "If the entire world" Goober. "If the entire world",
then there would be no slaughterhouses, you poor simpleton.

.. . .

>You also
>are stupidly clinging to the false belief that wishing
>to "contribute to decent lives for livestock" is some
>kind of end in itself,

Not really Goo, but you simply cannot understand what I do believe.
I can appreciate the fact that humans get meat AND that some of the
animals raised to eat get lives of positive value, but you/"aras" can't
appreciate either. Most people are capable of appreciating both, but
you/"aras" necessarily are capable of appreciating neither. That's why
you're so amusingly though contemptibly confused and bewildered by
"the big picture".

>and that if livestock no longer exist, then "conscientious consumers" will be
>cheated. That's just ****ing hilarious!

If you/"aras" are successful with your suggestion that:

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

some meat consumers--conscientious and not--might feel that
they had been cheated by the forced imposition of your desires
and beliefs Goo...and very possibly rightly so.

Even though you/"aras" insist that:

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

the only individuals who would benefit from their elimination,
would be those of you who are disturbed because we raise
animals to eat, Goob. It wouldn't help the vast majority of more
normal humans, and it certainly couldn't help farm animals, so
it appears that there is a great deal of selfishness involved in
the elimination objective, Mr Goo.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>
>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>> by being vegan
>>>
>>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the
>>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more than
>>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>>
>> There's no reason to believe that.
>
>There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to cause
>meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of them
>would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal being
>processed per hour.

Where has that happened?

>>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>>
>> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their
>> lifestyle
>> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan. Duh.
>
>Logic of the Larder,

The result remains the same regardless of whether the Logic of the
Larder is applied, or the Logic of the Talking Pig, or both, or neither,
or some other "logic"...

>discredited sophistry.

Not yet. So far you haven't been able to post exactly which part
of the Logic of the Talking Pig you think discredits the Logic of
the Larder, so you are lying.

>>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
>>
>> LOL...no, it's not.
>
>Yes it is. Animal Welfare says we do something decent and good by treating
>animals well, The Logic of the Larder says we do something decent and good
>by causing animals to come into existence.

Only: "when their life is a fairly happy one", which means that
decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and so you are lying
yet again.

>>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
>>
>> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to prevent
>> people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent AW:
>
>You are desperate to convince someone that The Logic of the Larder and
>Animal Welfare are synonymous, you will fail.

Henry "ar" Salt explains that the Logic of the Larder only applies "when
their life is a fairly happy one", so if anyone else reading this is capable of
understanding the fact, then you are lying yet again.

>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
>> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
>
>That is correct, so what?

So I want everyone to understand the HUGE difference between "ar"
and decent Animal Welfare....
> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: "Dutch" >
>> Message-ID: >
>>
>> dh pointed out:
>>
>>> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
>>> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
>>> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.
>
>AW means better lives for animals. the Logic of the Larder means *lives* for
>animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're the same
>thing, they are completely different objectives. There is no legitimate
>movement to promote "lives for farm animals", that is a pathetic joke.
>
>> Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go
>> blow
>> your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯
>
>That was an excellent suggestion.

.....and you/"aras" make it extremely obvious that for $ome rea$on$ you
very dishonestly are opposed to their understanding.

****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober
cracker, cluelessly lied:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, cluelessly lied:
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, cluelessly lied:
> >>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Leif Erikson handed ****wit's head back to ****wit:
> >>>>
> >>>>>You thought you had found some really
> >>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
> >>>>
> >>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
> >>>> by being vegan
> >>>
> >>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the
> >>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more than
> >>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
> >>
> >> There's no reason to believe that.
> >
> >There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to cause
> >meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of them
> >would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal being
> >processed per hour.
>
> Where has that happened?
>
> >>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
> >>
> >> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their
> >> lifestyle
> >> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan. Duh.
> >
> >Logic of the Larder,
>
> The result remains the same

Right: your illogic is identified as discredited sophistry.

> >discredited sophistry.
>
> Not yet.

For over a century. Ha ha ha ha ha!


> >>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
> >>
> >> LOL...no, it's not.
> >
> >Yes it is. Animal Welfare says we do something decent and good by treating
> >animals well, The Logic of the Larder says we do something decent and good
> >by causing animals to come into existence.
>
> Only:

No. You consider existence to be "better" than never existing. Stop
lying, pig-****er.


> >>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
> >>
> >> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to prevent
> >> people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent AW:
> >
> >You are desperate to convince someone that The Logic of the Larder and
> >Animal Welfare are synonymous, you will fail.
>
> Henry "ar" Salt explains that the Logic of the Larder

Is illogical sophistry.


> >> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
> >> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
> >
> >That is correct, so what?
>
> So I want everyone to understand the HUGE difference between "ar"
> and decent Animal Welfare

You don't care about animal welfare. You never have.

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.
****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005



Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

****wit:
Not really.
****wit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006



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. I don't care about
them at all; I would just ignore their suffering.
****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

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

> On 26 Jul 2006 17:59:16 -0700, "JL" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Kevan Smith wrote:
> >> In article .com>,
> >> "JL" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > If humans cant treat each other with compassion what hope have food
> >> > animales to any greater degree of sympathy than we extend to our own
> >> > species.
> >>
> >> Humans can treat each other with compassion. You wouldn't be here if
> >> that were so. Think about the great compassion your parents had for you,
> >> and what would have happened had they not.
> >
> >Mans inhumanity to man is well documented, founded on greed and envy
> >and a lack of comapssion, to not even mention the human animales
> >'transcendental spiritual pride" ("next year in Jerusalem")
> >
> >Any individual may be a saint, but the species as a whole exhibts the
> >basic traits of the animale it is, the terriitorial carnivore that
> >devours its young, in war and opression both economic and social.
> >
> >I have no hope for the food animales being treated better than they
> >are,
>
> I sure do. I have much hope for it as a matter of fact. You don't care about animal welfare. You never have.

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.
****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005



Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

****wit:
Not really.
****wit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006



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. I don't care about
them at all; I would just ignore their suffering.
****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>>
>>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>>> by being vegan
>>>>
>>>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the
>>>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more
>>>>than
>>>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>>>
>>> There's no reason to believe that.
>>
>>There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to cause
>>meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of them
>>would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal being
>>processed per hour.
>
> Where has that happened?

Everywhere where there is increased demand there is pressure to house more
animals and process them quicker. That's common sense. Also common sense is
that the reverse is also true.

>>>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>>>
>>> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their
>>> lifestyle
>>> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan. Duh.
>>
>>Logic of the Larder,
>
> The result remains the same regardless of whether the Logic of the
> Larder is applied, or the Logic of the Talking Pig, or both, or neither,
> or some other "logic"...

Exactly, your sophistry makes no difference to any animal.

>>discredited sophistry.
>
> Not yet. So far you haven't been able to post exactly which part
> of the Logic of the Talking Pig you think discredits the Logic of
> the Larder, so you are lying.

It's been explained to you at least a hundred times.

>>>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
>>>
>>> LOL...no, it's not.
>>
>>Yes it is. Animal Welfare says we do something decent and good by treating
>>animals well, The Logic of the Larder says we do something decent and good
>>by causing animals to come into existence.
>
> Only: "when their life is a fairly happy one", which means that
> decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and so you are lying
> yet again.

That stipulation doesn't change the fundamental contradictions in the LoL.
Salt makes that aside as a concession to the ethics of proponents of the
LoL, he should not have.

>
>>>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
>>>
>>> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to
>>> prevent
>>> people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent AW:
>>
>>You are desperate to convince someone that The Logic of the Larder and
>>Animal Welfare are synonymous, you will fail.
>
> Henry "ar" Salt explains that the Logic of the Larder only applies
> "when
> their life is a fairly happy one", so if anyone else reading this is
> capable of
> understanding the fact, then you are lying yet again.

Henry Salt did not originate the LoL. It is obviously quite possible to
simply argue that livestock animals benefit by being born, and any
experiences they have are worth "consideration when assessing human impact
on animals". This is also the LoL, and has been your position in most cases.

>>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people
who
>>> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
>>
>>That is correct, so what?
>
> So I want everyone to understand the HUGE difference between "ar"
> and decent Animal Welfare....

That's fine, I get that, but the real issue here is the huge distinction
between decent Animal Welfare and the Logic of the Larder. It's one thing to
advocate better treatment for farm animals, it's another thing entirely to
believe that the breeding of farm animals is a real moral issue in itself.
It's not, it's a bogus issue. It's a bogus issue when ARAs complain that
farm animals should not exist, it's a bogus issue when you cry that they
should exist. The issue simply is that inasmuch they do exist, they deserve
decent treatment. Why can't you get that through your head?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>>>> by being vegan
>>>>>
>>>>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the
>>>>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more
>>>>>than
>>>>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>>>>
>>>> There's no reason to believe that.
>>>
>>>There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to cause
>>>meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of them
>>>would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal being
>>>processed per hour.
>>
>> Where has that happened?
>
>Everywhere where there is increased demand there is pressure to house more
>animals and process them quicker. That's common sense. Also common sense is
>that the reverse is also true.

We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having happened,
so there's no point pretending it has.

>>>>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>>>>
>>>> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their
>>>> lifestyle
>>>> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan. Duh.
>>>
>>>Logic of the Larder,
>>
>> The result remains the same regardless of whether the Logic of the
>> Larder is applied, or the Logic of the Talking Pig, or both, or neither,
>> or some other "logic"...
>
>Exactly,

So why do you think we get more browny points for applying the
Logic of the Talking Pig, than the Logic of the Larder?

>your sophistry makes no difference to any animal.
>
>>>discredited sophistry.
>>
>> Not yet. So far you haven't been able to post exactly which part
>> of the Logic of the Talking Pig you think discredits the Logic of
>> the Larder, so you are lying.
>
>It's been explained to you

We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having happened,
so there's no point pretending it has.

>at least a hundred times.
>
>>>>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
>>>>
>>>> LOL...no, it's not.
>>>
>>>Yes it is. Animal Welfare says we do something decent and good by treating
>>>animals well, The Logic of the Larder says we do something decent and good
>>>by causing animals to come into existence.
>>
>> Only: "when their life is a fairly happy one", which means that
>> decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and so you are lying
>> yet again.
>
>That stipulation doesn't change the fundamental contradictions in the LoL.
>Salt makes that aside as a concession to the ethics of proponents of the
>LoL, he should not have.

He included it because he was far more honest than you/"aras" today.

>he should not have.

LOL!!! We can plainly see the dishonest "aras" of today feel that way,
but Salt's honesty shows that "aras" had to be more honest back when
there were more people who could appreciate that some livestock have
lives of positive value. We're seeing a slice of history that you/"aras"
dishonestly but very amusingly want to see forgotten. Just as Goo
reprimanded you for acknowledging the fact that some livestock lives can
be of positive value, you wish you could reprimand Salt for acknowledging
that the LoL requires decent AW.

>>>>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
>>>>
>>>> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to
>>>> prevent
>>>> people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent AW:
>>>
>>>You are desperate to convince someone that The Logic of the Larder and
>>>Animal Welfare are synonymous, you will fail.
>>
>> Henry "ar" Salt explains that the Logic of the Larder only applies
>> "when
>> their life is a fairly happy one", so if anyone else reading this is
>> capable of
>> understanding the fact, then you are lying yet again.
>
>Henry Salt did not originate the LoL. It is obviously quite possible to
>simply argue that livestock animals benefit by being born,

That's beyond your ability to think about in any detail.

>and any
>experiences they have are worth "consideration when assessing human impact
>on animals".

That's a different issue that is also beyond your ability to
think about in any detail.

>This is also the LoL, and has been your position in most cases.
>
> >>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people
>who
>>>> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
>>>
>>>That is correct, so what?
>>
>> So I want everyone to understand the HUGE difference between "ar"
>> and decent Animal Welfare....
>
>That's fine, I get that, but the real issue here is the huge distinction
>between decent Animal Welfare and the Logic of the Larder.

Decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and THAT is exactly
why you/"aras" are opposed to it.

>It's one thing to
>advocate better treatment for farm animals, it's another thing entirely to
>believe that the breeding of farm animals is a real moral issue in itself.

Providing them with life is as much an issue as taking it.

>It's not, it's a bogus issue.

Not to you/"aras" who aren't capable of appreciating the issue,
but it's very real to billions of animals regardless of your inability to
appreciate the fact, and therefore must be significant to anyone
who considers the animals themselves.

>It's a bogus issue when ARAs complain that
>farm animals should not exist, it's a bogus issue when you cry that they
>should exist. The issue simply is that inasmuch they do exist, they deserve
>decent treatment. Why can't you get that through your head?

I understand that there's more to human influence on animals
than you/"aras" want people to consider, and of course that lives
of positive value for livestock is one suggestion that you/"aras"
must necessarily be extremely opposed to seeing given proper
consideration.....and you are.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>>>>> by being vegan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more
>>>>>>than
>>>>>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no reason to believe that.
>>>>
>>>>There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to cause
>>>>meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of them
>>>>would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal
>>>>being
>>>>processed per hour.
>>>
>>> Where has that happened?
>>
>>Everywhere where there is increased demand there is pressure to house more
>>animals and process them quicker. That's common sense. Also common sense
>>is
>>that the reverse is also true.
>
> We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having happened,

Everywhere that the demand decreases the production decreases accordingly,
Economics 101.

> so there's no point pretending it has.

The unsupported pretense here is your vague claim that livestock have "lives
of decent value".

>
>>>>>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>>>>>
>>>>> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their
>>>>> lifestyle
>>>>> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan. Duh.
>>>>
>>>>Logic of the Larder,
>>>
>>> The result remains the same regardless of whether the Logic of the
>>> Larder is applied, or the Logic of the Talking Pig, or both, or neither,
>>> or some other "logic"...
>>
>>Exactly,
>
> So why do you think we get more browny points for applying the
> Logic of the Talking Pig, than the Logic of the Larder?

You don't get any credit for causing animals to exist so you can use them.

>>your sophistry makes no difference to any animal.
>>
>>>>discredited sophistry.
>>>
>>> Not yet. So far you haven't been able to post exactly which part
>>> of the Logic of the Talking Pig you think discredits the Logic of
>>> the Larder, so you are lying.
>>
>>It's been explained to you
>
> We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having happened,
> so there's no point pretending it has.

You don't appear to have a brain.

>>at least a hundred times.
>>
>>>>>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL...no, it's not.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is. Animal Welfare says we do something decent and good by
>>>>treating
>>>>animals well, The Logic of the Larder says we do something decent and
>>>>good
>>>>by causing animals to come into existence.
>>>
>>> Only: "when their life is a fairly happy one", which means that
>>> decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and so you are lying
>>> yet again.
>>
>>That stipulation doesn't change the fundamental contradictions in the LoL.
>>Salt makes that aside as a concession to the ethics of proponents of the
>>LoL, he should not have.
>
> He included it because he was far more honest than you/"aras" today.

He was incapable of imagining the depth of callousness to which proponents
of he LoL would sink.

>>he should not have.
>
> LOL!!! We can plainly see the dishonest "aras" of today feel that way,
> but Salt's honesty shows that "aras" had to be more honest back when
> there were more people who could appreciate that some livestock have
> lives of positive value. We're seeing a slice of history that you/"aras"
> dishonestly but very amusingly want to see forgotten. Just as Goo
> reprimanded you for acknowledging the fact that some livestock lives can
> be of positive value, you wish you could reprimand Salt for acknowledging
> that the LoL requires decent AW.

You are an example of the LoL being separated from decent AW. I have asked
you many times if it would be wrong to farm animals if it were found that
their lives did not have "decent value", you have dodged the question every
time. You dodge it because you refuse to contemplate that your position
implies that you are immoral.

>>>>>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to
>>>>> prevent
>>>>> people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent
>>>>> AW:
>>>>
>>>>You are desperate to convince someone that The Logic of the Larder and
>>>>Animal Welfare are synonymous, you will fail.
>>>
>>> Henry "ar" Salt explains that the Logic of the Larder only applies
>>> "when
>>> their life is a fairly happy one", so if anyone else reading this is
>>> capable of
>>> understanding the fact, then you are lying yet again.
>>
>>Henry Salt did not originate the LoL. It is obviously quite possible to
>>simply argue that livestock animals benefit by being born,
>
> That's beyond your ability to think about in any detail.

It's not beyond yours, which is exactly my point.

>>and any
>>experiences they have are worth "consideration when assessing human impact
>>on animals".
>
> That's a different issue that is also beyond your ability to
> think about in any detail.

How is it a different issue?

>>This is also the LoL, and has been your position in most cases.
>>
>> >>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from
>> >>> people
>>who
>>>>> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
>>>>
>>>>That is correct, so what?
>>>
>>> So I want everyone to understand the HUGE difference between "ar"
>>> and decent Animal Welfare....
>>
>>That's fine, I get that, but the real issue here is the huge distinction
>>between decent Animal Welfare and the Logic of the Larder.
>
> Decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and THAT is exactly
> why you/"aras" are opposed to it.

So what is the significance of your categorical statement that whatever life
livestock animals get is more than they would have otherwise had? You can't
explain that.

>>It's one thing to
>>advocate better treatment for farm animals, it's another thing entirely to
>>believe that the breeding of farm animals is a real moral issue in itself.
>
> Providing them with life is as much an issue as taking it.
>
>>It's not, it's a bogus issue.
>
> Not to you/"aras" who aren't capable of appreciating the issue,

ARAs don't consider it a bogus issue. You advocates of LoL and they both
consider it significant.

> but it's very real to billions of animals regardless of your inability to
> appreciate the fact, and therefore must be significant to anyone
> who considers the animals themselves.

Where is the consideration of [gag] "decent AW" in that pronouncement of the
LoL? Nowhere, that's where, because *your* version of the LoL does not
require it.

>>It's a bogus issue when ARAs complain that
>>farm animals should not exist, it's a bogus issue when you cry that they
>>should exist. The issue simply is that inasmuch they do exist, they
>>deserve
>>decent treatment. Why can't you get that through your head?
>
> I understand that there's more to human influence on animals
> than you/"aras" want people to consider, and of course that lives
> of positive value for livestock is one suggestion that you/"aras"
> must necessarily be extremely opposed to seeing given proper
> consideration.....and you are.

"You/aras" each argue that the lives of animals we raise for food are
morally significant. ARAs believe that those lives are a moral blemish on
humanity, you see those lives as a gift from humanity to the animals, that
their lives are a benefit bestowed on them by us. Those opposing yet related
views are both badly misguided. The enlightened view says that the
significance of our relationship with those animals is completely defined by
how we treat them.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:09:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>>>>>> by being vegan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process more
>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no reason to believe that.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to cause
>>>>>meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of them
>>>>>would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal
>>>>>being
>>>>>processed per hour.
>>>>
>>>> Where has that happened?
>>>
>>>Everywhere where there is increased demand there is pressure to house more
>>>animals and process them quicker. That's common sense. Also common sense
>>>is
>>>that the reverse is also true.
>>
>> We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having happened,
>
>Everywhere that the demand decreases the production decreases accordingly,
>Economics 101.

We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having happened,

>> so there's no point pretending it has.
>
>The unsupported pretense here is your vague claim that livestock have "lives
>of decent value".

You are incapable of understanding how life could have positive value
for any livestock.

>>>>>>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with their
>>>>>> lifestyle
>>>>>> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan. Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>>Logic of the Larder,
>>>>
>>>> The result remains the same regardless of whether the Logic of the
>>>> Larder is applied, or the Logic of the Talking Pig, or both, or neither,
>>>> or some other "logic"...
>>>
>>>Exactly,
>>
>> So why do you think we get more browny points for applying the
>> Logic of the Talking Pig, than the Logic of the Larder?
>
>You don't get any credit for causing animals to exist so you can use them.

Why do you think we get more browny points for applying the
Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic of the Larder, do you
have any idea?
.. . .

>>>Henry Salt did not originate the LoL. It is obviously quite possible to
>>>simply argue that livestock animals benefit by being born,
>>
>> That's beyond your ability to think about in any detail.
>
>It's not beyond yours, which is exactly my point.
>
>>>and any
>>>experiences they have are worth "consideration when assessing human impact
>>>on animals".
>>
>> That's a different issue that is also beyond your ability to
>> think about in any detail.
>
>How is it a different issue?

One is about life itself that is common to all things that live.
The other is about the individual life experiences of particular
animals. The distinction appears to be beyond your/"aras'"
ability to understand.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:09:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:0g4fc2pffo93n0if05ndu7nogl0v321ijv@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>>>>>>> by being vegan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process
>>>>>>>>more
>>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no reason to believe that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to
>>>>>>cause
>>>>>>meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of
>>>>>>them
>>>>>>would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal
>>>>>>being
>>>>>>processed per hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where has that happened?
>>>>
>>>>Everywhere where there is increased demand there is pressure to house
>>>>more
>>>>animals and process them quicker. That's common sense. Also common sense
>>>>is
>>>>that the reverse is also true.
>>>
>>> We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having
>>> happened,

Head firmly inserted in asshole..

>>
>>Everywhere that the demand decreases the production decreases accordingly,
>>Economics 101.
>
> We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having happened,
>
>>> so there's no point pretending it has.
>>
>>The unsupported pretense here is your vague claim that livestock have
>>"lives
>>of decent value".
>
> You are incapable of understanding how life could have positive value
> for any livestock.

You are incapable of understanding how irrelevant you are.

>>>>>>>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> lifestyle
>>>>>>> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan.
>>>>>>> Duh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Logic of the Larder,
>>>>>
>>>>> The result remains the same regardless of whether the Logic of the
>>>>> Larder is applied, or the Logic of the Talking Pig, or both, or
>>>>> neither,
>>>>> or some other "logic"...
>>>>
>>>>Exactly,
>>>
>>> So why do you think we get more browny points for applying the
>>> Logic of the Talking Pig, than the Logic of the Larder?
>>
>>You don't get any credit for causing animals to exist so you can use them.
>
> Why do you think we get more browny points for applying the
> Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic of the Larder, do you
> have any idea?

You don't get any credit for causing animals to exist so you can use them.

> . . .
>
>>>>Henry Salt did not originate the LoL. It is obviously quite possible to
>>>>simply argue that livestock animals benefit by being born,
>>>
>>> That's beyond your ability to think about in any detail.
>>
>>It's not beyond yours, which is exactly my point.
>>
>>>>and any
>>>>experiences they have are worth "consideration when assessing human
>>>>impact
>>>>on animals".
>>>
>>> That's a different issue that is also beyond your ability to
>>> think about in any detail.
>>
>>How is it a different issue?
>
> One is about life itself that is common to all things that live.
> The other is about the individual life experiences of particular
> animals. The distinction appears to be beyond your/"aras'"
> ability to understand.

I'll reinsert the rest which you evaded... maybe you'll find the guts to
address it.


You don't appear to have a brain.

>>at least a hundred times.
>>
>>>>>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL...no, it's not.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is. Animal Welfare says we do something decent and good by
>>>>treating
>>>>animals well, The Logic of the Larder says we do something decent and
>>>>good
>>>>by causing animals to come into existence.
>>>
>>> Only: "when their life is a fairly happy one", which means that
>>> decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and so you are lying
>>> yet again.
>>
>>That stipulation doesn't change the fundamental contradictions in the LoL.
>>Salt makes that aside as a concession to the ethics of proponents of the
>>LoL, he should not have.
>
> He included it because he was far more honest than you/"aras" today.

He was incapable of imagining the depth of callousness to which proponents
of he LoL would sink.

>>he should not have.
>
> LOL!!! We can plainly see the dishonest "aras" of today feel that way,
> but Salt's honesty shows that "aras" had to be more honest back when
> there were more people who could appreciate that some livestock have
> lives of positive value. We're seeing a slice of history that you/"aras"
> dishonestly but very amusingly want to see forgotten. Just as Goo
> reprimanded you for acknowledging the fact that some livestock lives can
> be of positive value, you wish you could reprimand Salt for acknowledging
> that the LoL requires decent AW.

You are an example of the LoL being separated from decent AW. I have asked
you many times if it would be wrong to farm animals if it were found that
their lives did not have "decent value", you have dodged the question every
time. You dodge it because you refuse to contemplate that your position
implies that you are immoral.

>>>>>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to
>>>>> prevent
>>>>> people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent
>>>>> AW:
>>>>
>>>>You are desperate to convince someone that The Logic of the Larder and
>>>>Animal Welfare are synonymous, you will fail.
>>>
>>> Henry "ar" Salt explains that the Logic of the Larder only applies
>>> "when
>>> their life is a fairly happy one", so if anyone else reading this is
>>> capable of
>>> understanding the fact, then you are lying yet again.
>>
>>Henry Salt did not originate the LoL. It is obviously quite possible to
>>simply argue that livestock animals benefit by being born,
>
> That's beyond your ability to think about in any detail.

It's not beyond yours, which is exactly my point.

>>and any
>>experiences they have are worth "consideration when assessing human impact
>>on animals".
>
> That's a different issue that is also beyond your ability to
> think about in any detail.

How is it a different issue?

>>This is also the LoL, and has been your position in most cases.
>>
>> >>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from
>> >>> people
>>who
>>>>> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
>>>>
>>>>That is correct, so what?
>>>
>>> So I want everyone to understand the HUGE difference between "ar"
>>> and decent Animal Welfare....
>>
>>That's fine, I get that, but the real issue here is the huge distinction
>>between decent Animal Welfare and the Logic of the Larder.
>
> Decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and THAT is exactly
> why you/"aras" are opposed to it.

So what is the significance of your categorical statement that whatever life
livestock animals get is more than they would have otherwise had? You can't
explain that.

>>It's one thing to
>>advocate better treatment for farm animals, it's another thing entirely to
>>believe that the breeding of farm animals is a real moral issue in itself.
>
> Providing them with life is as much an issue as taking it.
>
>>It's not, it's a bogus issue.
>
> Not to you/"aras" who aren't capable of appreciating the issue,

ARAs don't consider it a bogus issue. You advocates of LoL and they both
consider it significant.

> but it's very real to billions of animals regardless of your inability to
> appreciate the fact, and therefore must be significant to anyone
> who considers the animals themselves.

Where is the consideration of [gag] "decent AW" in that pronouncement of the
LoL? Nowhere, that's where, because *your* version of the LoL does not
require it.

>>It's a bogus issue when ARAs complain that
>>farm animals should not exist, it's a bogus issue when you cry that they
>>should exist. The issue simply is that inasmuch they do exist, they
>>deserve
>>decent treatment. Why can't you get that through your head?
>
> I understand that there's more to human influence on animals
> than you/"aras" want people to consider, and of course that lives
> of positive value for livestock is one suggestion that you/"aras"
> must necessarily be extremely opposed to seeing given proper
> consideration.....and you are.

"You/aras" each argue that the lives of animals we raise for food are
morally significant. ARAs believe that those lives are a moral blemish on
humanity, you see those lives as a gift from humanity to the animals, that
their lives are a benefit bestowed on them by us. Those opposing yet related
views are both badly misguided. The enlightened view says that the
significance of our relationship with those animals is completely defined by
how we treat them.
>

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:54:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:09:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:0g4fc2pffo93n0if05ndu7nogl0v321ijv@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You thought you had found some really
>>>>>>>>>>>clever, cutesy way of throwing shit at "aras"/"vegans",
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I point out that people can't do anything to help livestock
>>>>>>>>>> by being vegan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're wrong, being vegan reduces the demand for meat, which reduces
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>pressure on producers to crowd animals into barns and to process
>>>>>>>>>more
>>>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>>>the ideal number of animals through slaughter per day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's no reason to believe that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's every reason to believe it. There are not enough vegans to
>>>>>>>cause
>>>>>>>meat producers to close facilities, therefore a moderate number of
>>>>>>>them
>>>>>>>would result in less crowding in existing facilities and few animal
>>>>>>>being
>>>>>>>processed per hour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where has that happened?
>>>>>
>>>>>Everywhere where there is increased demand there is pressure to house
>>>>>more
>>>>>animals and process them quicker. That's common sense. Also common sense
>>>>>is
>>>>>that the reverse is also true.
>>>>
>>>> We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having
>>>> happened,
>
>Head firmly

Your childish reaction confirmed the truth of what I pointed out.

>inserted in asshole..
>
>>>
>>>Everywhere that the demand decreases the production decreases accordingly,
>>>Economics 101.
>>
>> We don't appear to be able to find any examples of it having happened,
>>
>>>> so there's no point pretending it has.
>>>
>>>The unsupported pretense here is your vague claim that livestock have
>>>"lives
>>>of decent value".
>>
>> You are incapable of understanding how life could have positive value
>> for any livestock.
>
>You are incapable of understanding how irrelevant you are.

Your childish reaction again confirmed the truth of what I pointed out.

>>>>>>>>>People can't doing anything for livestock by being a meat-eater.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock with
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> lifestyle
>>>>>>>> by being conscientious consumers, not by dying or becoming vegan.
>>>>>>>> Duh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Logic of the Larder,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result remains the same regardless of whether the Logic of the
>>>>>> Larder is applied, or the Logic of the Talking Pig, or both, or
>>>>>> neither,
>>>>>> or some other "logic"...
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly,
>>>>
>>>> So why do you think we get more browny points for applying the
>>>> Logic of the Talking Pig, than the Logic of the Larder?
>>>
>>>You don't get any credit for causing animals to exist so you can use them.
>>
>> Why do you think we get more browny points for applying the
>> Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic of the Larder, do you
>> have any idea?
>
>You

LOL! You're pathetic, but amusing. It's very amusing that you have
no idea why you think we get more browny points for applying the
Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic of the Larder, and even more
amusing to see you confirm the fact. It's simply pathetic that you claim
it to be true without being able to even try backing up the claim.

.. . .

>address it.
>
>
>You don't appear to have a brain.

If that's actually how it appears to you, it's just that much more to
confirm how stupid you are.

>>>at least a hundred times.
>>>
>>>>>>>Meat-eaters can make better choices, but that's another issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL...no, it's not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is. Animal Welfare says we do something decent and good by
>>>>>treating
>>>>>animals well, The Logic of the Larder says we do something decent and
>>>>>good
>>>>>by causing animals to come into existence.
>>>>
>>>> Only: "when their life is a fairly happy one", which means that
>>>> decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and so you are lying
>>>> yet again.
>>>
>>>That stipulation doesn't change the fundamental contradictions in the LoL.
>>>Salt makes that aside as a concession to the ethics of proponents of the
>>>LoL, he should not have.
>>
>> He included it because he was far more honest than you/"aras" today.
>
>He was incapable of imagining the depth of callousness to which proponents
>of he LoL would sink.

He may instead have been incapable of imagining the depth of callousness
to which you "aras" would sink, but it's more likely that back in those times
"aras" couldn't get away with as many lies and stupid claims as they do today,
because there were more people who had enough experience with animals
that they could point out the dishonesty and stupidity...not letting "aras" get
away with as much of it as they get away with now. I'll make a note of the
fact that you "aras" now insist that "he should not have" been honest enough
to include consideration of quality of life.

>>>he should not have.
>>
>> LOL!!! We can plainly see the dishonest "aras" of today feel that way,
>> but Salt's honesty shows that "aras" had to be more honest back when
>> there were more people who could appreciate that some livestock have
>> lives of positive value. We're seeing a slice of history that you/"aras"
>> dishonestly but very amusingly want to see forgotten. Just as Goo
>> reprimanded you for acknowledging the fact that some livestock lives can
>> be of positive value, you wish you could reprimand Salt for acknowledging
>> that the LoL requires decent AW.
>
>You are an example of the LoL being separated from decent AW.

That's a lie. LOL! You're simply confirming again you feel that people
"should not" be honest and include consideration of quality of life, by
lying and saying I don't consider it.

>I have asked
>you many times if it would be wrong to farm animals if it were found that
>their lives did not have "decent value", you have dodged the question every
>time.

IMO it is.

>You dodge it because you refuse to contemplate that your position
>implies that you are immoral.

When I don't answer a question it's because you will use the answer
to build more lies, and/or will be too stupid to understand what I actually
believe. You have certainly shown yourself too stupid for that time after
time after time.....

>>>>>>>You are attempting to equivocate again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what you/"aras" are desperate to do, in your attempts to
>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>> people from appreciating the huge difference between "ar" and decent
>>>>>> AW:
>>>>>
>>>>>You are desperate to convince someone that The Logic of the Larder and
>>>>>Animal Welfare are synonymous, you will fail.
>>>>
>>>> Henry "ar" Salt explains that the Logic of the Larder only applies
>>>> "when
>>>> their life is a fairly happy one", so if anyone else reading this is
>>>> capable of
>>>> understanding the fact, then you are lying yet again.
>>>
>>>Henry Salt did not originate the LoL. It is obviously quite possible to
>>>simply argue that livestock animals benefit by being born,
>>
>> That's beyond your ability to think about in any detail.
>
>It's not beyond yours, which is exactly my point.

Why do you want to point out that you can't think about such things in
any detail? Usually it appears that you try to deny the fact, while amusingly
confirming it at the same time.

>>>and any
>>>experiences they have are worth "consideration when assessing human impact
>>>on animals".
>>
>> That's a different issue that is also beyond your ability to
>> think about in any detail.
>
>How is it a different issue?

LOL. It's beyond your ability to think about in any detail, as I
continue to point out and you continue to prove. You give the
appearance of wanting to understand, yet being unable to
figure it out. Figuring it out so you can understand it is up to
you and your own ability--or lack of. All the information you
need in order to be able to figure it out--if!!! you're capable of
ever understanding--is in the definitions of these two different
meanings for the word "life":
__________________________________________________ _______
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>This is also the LoL, and has been your position in most cases.
>>>
>>> >>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from
>>> >>> people
>>>who
>>>>>> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch
>>>>>
>>>>>That is correct, so what?
>>>>
>>>> So I want everyone to understand the HUGE difference between "ar"
>>>> and decent Animal Welfare....
>>>
>>>That's fine, I get that, but the real issue here is the huge distinction
>>>between decent Animal Welfare and the Logic of the Larder.
>>
>> Decent AW is a necessary part of the LoL, and THAT is exactly
>> why you/"aras" are opposed to it.
>
>So what is the significance of your categorical statement that whatever life
>livestock animals get is more than they would have otherwise had?

The fact that it is.

>You can't explain that.

You can't understand how the lives of billions of animals could be/ARE
in any way significant. It's something else you would need to figure out for
yourself in order to understand, but by now it's amusingly clear you can't.

.. . .

>The enlightened view says that the significance of our relationship with those
>animals is completely defined by how we treat them.

You "aras" can't comprehend how life could have positive value for those
animals, *regardless!* of "how we treat them". Duh.

<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.

"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


--
--

Jim Webster.

Pat Gardiner, now in the sixth year of raving about bent vets and still no
result

"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.

Can't you find some work to do? You claim to be a working farmer.

BTW, your signature is defamatory.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Jim Webster.
>
> Pat Gardiner, now in the sixth year of raving about bent vets and still no
> result
>
>

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.

>That only diminishes us as human beings.

LOL. You still haven't explained how you think considering the
animals' position diminishes us as human beings. You also haven't
explained how refusing to do so makes you "aras" any better than
people who do.

>This raises the question once again, why do you find it necessary to
>spread this gospel?

Because when people fail to consider everything, they are only
considering a fraction of the situation and not getting a realistic
interpretation of everything. Of course in this case that's exactly
what you "aras" want, because consideration of what the animals
gain suggests that some alternatives like providing decent lives
for livestock could be ethically equivalent or superior to their
elimination.

>What deep-rooted guilt you must feel.

Why do you think people should feel guilt for considering when
livestock's lives are of positive value? Do you think it should
reduce the guilt somehow if people refuse to consider that aspect
of the situation? If so, how?

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.

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:01:14 +0100, "Jim Webster" > wrote:

>
>"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?

As you can see it's important to "aras" that meat consumers feel guilt.
In fact it's probably the most important thing to them, which would explain
why they insist that it exists even in cases where there's no reason why
it should.

>eat meat if you like it

And buy products which contribute to lives of positive value for livestock
if you want to, which works against the "ar" objective to eliminate them.
The fact that it would work against their elimination objective is why "aras"
selfishly though amusingly insist people should feel guilt even for contributing
to lives of positive value. But do we see them encourage feelings of guilt
for the animals they don't contribute to the lives of....only their deaths?

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.

--
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]

<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.

>>That only diminishes us as human beings.
>
> LOL. You still haven't explained how you think considering the
> animals' position diminishes us as human beings. You also haven't
> explained how refusing to do so makes you "aras" any better than
> people who do.

Yes I have explained it, many times. What are you doing *precisely* when you
"consider the animals position"?

>>This raises the question once again, why do you find it necessary to
>>spread this gospel?
>
> Because when people fail to consider everything, they are only
> considering a fraction of the situation and not getting a realistic
> interpretation of everything. Of course in this case that's exactly
> what you "aras" want, because consideration of what the animals
> gain suggests that some alternatives like providing decent lives
> for livestock could be ethically equivalent or superior to their
> elimination.

That is all meaningless unless you explain exactly what you mean by
"consider".

>>What deep-rooted guilt you must feel.
>
> Why do you think people should feel guilt for considering when
> livestock's lives are of positive value? Do you think it should
> reduce the guilt somehow if people refuse to consider that aspect
> of the situation? If so, how?

What do you mean "consider"?

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.

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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

<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.

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.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com

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.

> 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.

--
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]

<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?

"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.

"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

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

>
> > 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


--
--

Jim Webster.

Pat Gardiner, now in the sixth year of raving about bent vets and still no
result