Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Conner, usenet Troll
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... LOL I see what the troll is doing, he's retying to sell a spam blocker!! What a hoot! The troll wants to sell crap.... No wonder he can't debate AR or the environement, he's a sham troll.... |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Conner, usenet Troll
On uk.environment, in > , "rick" wrote:
<article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > Subject: Alan Conner, usenet Troll Nope. I post under a single, unique alias. Anyone who doesn't like my style can killfile me and I'm gone. (And many people have, believe me. I respect their right to do so.) But you won't do that, because YOU are a troll. You think you can force me to read your articles and that I have a moral obligation to do so. Guess again. And people can't killfile YOU because YOU will just scuttle off and hide behind another alias. But _I_ have gagfiled you (I only bring down your headers) and you _will_ stay in my gagfile. Note: I won't be downloading any articles on this thread. Alan -- See my headers. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Conner, usenet Troll
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... > On uk.environment, in > > , "rick" > wrote: > > <article not downloaded: > http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > >> Subject: Alan Conner, usenet Troll > > Nope. I post under a single, unique alias. Anyone who doesn't > like my style can killfile me and I'm gone. > > (And many people have, believe me. I respect their right to do > so.) > > But you won't do that, because YOU are a troll. You think you > can > force me to read your articles and that I have a moral > obligation > to do so. =========================== ROTFLMAO I'm 'forcing' you to read posts? You really are that stupid, aren't you? And troll, you are reading my posts. Of course you're only replying to these posts because you cannot refute what I say about you ignorance about AR/envirionment/veg*nism. Come on back little boy when you can talk with the big people. > > Guess again. > > And people can't killfile YOU because YOU will just scuttle off > and hide behind another alias. > > But _I_ have gagfiled you (I only bring down your headers) and > you _will_ stay in my gagfile. > > Note: I won't be downloading any articles on this thread. > ===================== Run away like a good little troll.... > Alan > > -- > See my headers. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:31:47 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:03:00 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>Remember, most places in >>the world don't use the garin-fed model that the US/Canada does. >>That just started after WWII as a result of excess grain >>production and as a way to keep grain farmers in business. >. . . > >>How much labor does it take for venison? >>Grass-fed beef? >>Chickens that roam the back yard? Grain production is a very >>intensive process that invovles inputs from the petro-chemical >>industry at every step of the way. But then, don't let the facts >>get in the way of a good brainwashing, eh fool? > >Not interested in the opinions of dishonest cowards who post >under multiple aliases. No he doesn't post under multiple aliases. He posts regularly, and his posts point out absurdities and dishonesties promoted by you "aras". He posts information that you hate, because it suggests some options could be ethically equivalent or superior to your elimination objective. The truth is the enemy of "ar" in many/most cases, so the truth causes great cognitive dissonance in your brain which is very uncomfortable for you. You then lash out in desperate ways trying to make it go away any way you can, but you can't so you debase yourself by resorting to childish insults and making absurdly pointless dishonest claims, etc. The plain truth has reduced you to a frantic, desperate wreck, striking out at the messenger who presented these aspects of reality which are causing your incredible mental anguish. It won't ever go away, but you can never accept the truth as long as you maintain faith that veganism is the most ethically superior approach people could take. You must maintain that extreme position regardless of anything, or consider that in some cases it's okay for humans to raise and kill animals for food. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On uk.environment, in >, "dh@." wrote:
<article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> Yep. You're a troll. You just can't believe that someone isn't interested in your opinions. Here's a clue for you: Any ignorant and malicious child with their mommy's computer and credit card can post anything on the Usenet under multiple aliases through different newsservers. If you don't have the honesty and courage to post under a single, unique alias, you have ZERO credibility. With anyone who isn't dumb as a brick. How many times do I have to tell you this? No. There isn't anything you could possibly post that could harm me in any way. Dishonest cowards like you have threat ratings significantly below zero. So low that I don't even _have_ to read your articles. Alan -- See my headers. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Spammer alert... Alan Conner....
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... You're a troll. You just can't believe that someone isn't Alan conner is dumb as a brick, and has ZERO credibility. How many times do I have to tell you this? snip spew... |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:49:08 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>I don't even _have_ to read your articles. The truth hurts you, but you did read it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:10:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:00:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote in message om... >>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a >>>>>>>>>state >>>>>>>>>as >>>>>>>>>a >>>>>>>>>pre-existent soul, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not my argument... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to >>>>>>>nothing >>>>>>>real. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>>>>>>>>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. >>>>>>>>>Mythology >>>>>>>>>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to >>>>>>>>>earthly >>>>>>>>>coil. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...but it certainly was Goo's: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might >>>>>>>> provide: >>>>>>>> they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for >>>>>>>> the animals" - Goo >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the Goober *now* claims to know that: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you think your hero found out that which is undefinable? >>>>> >>>>>You *cannot* say it's a "benefit" >>>> >>>> I can if I can feel that some beings benefit from existing, which I >>>> can but you goos cannot. >>> >>>We're talking about "coming into existence", >> >> You want to limit any consideration to that, > >No, I am preventing you from getting away with equivocating between >"existence" and "coming into existence". > >> even though you >> admittedly don't know what the consideration is. > >I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am requiring >that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are >demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between consideration >of "existence" and "coming into existence". > >>>not existing. >> >> I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not. > >Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean quote the >dictionary. Think about what the animals lives are like, and consider whether or not we believe the experiences they have would be more likely to give life a positive or a negative value to them. There's more to it, but that much alone is more than you will ever be able to appreciate or even acknowledge. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 20:10:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge >Farming in harmony with nature > >By Lauren Cahoon >Special to The Journal >August 4, 2006 > .. . . >we brought them some of our lettuce and they went crazy over it >.... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good." Very hard to believe. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
Dave wrote: > Dutch wrote: > > > > > > 3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of life then you > > > need to show you have researched the subject. The very fact that you > > > assume a pre-destined soul awaiting transference into a body, assumes that > > > there are far more souls awaiting the growth of the animal population in > > > future. You are thus saying that the meat industry is being altruistic in > > > its creation of physical life in order to provide a shell which a "lost > > > soul" can occupy; in which case I cry for those souls of people waiting > > > for bodies to enter who may not gain the shell they crave if we do not > > > increase the human population to - how many lost souls are there Dave? You > > > must tell us. > > > > His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as a > > pre-existent soul, then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is > > superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology > > would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly > > coil. In reality in my view no such state exists, therefore coming into > > existence also cannot be seen as a benefit. > > "If there is such a state as a post-existent soul, then we have no > knowledge > whether or not that stae is superior ro life as we know it. If no such > state exists > and coming into existence can not be seen as a benefit than being taken > out of existence can not be seen as a harm." The reason I disagree with > DH > is that he acts as if we provide the resources that enable animals to > live when > actually the resources are provided by nature and all we do is allocate > them > based on selfish considerations like meat and gravy. Life is hard. It would be better never to exist. But how many people are that lucky? Barely 1 in 10. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >>I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am requiring >>that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are >>demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between >>consideration >>of "existence" and "coming into existence". >> >>>>not existing. >>> >>> I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not. >> >>Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean quote >>the >>dictionary. > > Think about what the animals lives are like, and consider whether > or not we believe the experiences they have would be more likely > to give life a positive or a negative value to them. That is one meaning of "life", considering the quality of their lives, aka AW, it doesn't imply the LoL. > There's more to it, > but that much alone is more than you will ever be able to appreciate > or even acknowledge. The "more" you are referring to is when you equivocate between that meaning of "life" and the other in order to promote the LoL. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On 10 Aug 2006 13:46:30 -0700, "z" > wrote:
> >Dave wrote: >> Dutch wrote: >> >> > >> > > 3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of life then you >> > > need to show you have researched the subject. The very fact that you >> > > assume a pre-destined soul awaiting transference into a body, assumes that >> > > there are far more souls awaiting the growth of the animal population in >> > > future. You are thus saying that the meat industry is being altruistic in >> > > its creation of physical life in order to provide a shell which a "lost >> > > soul" can occupy; in which case I cry for those souls of people waiting >> > > for bodies to enter who may not gain the shell they crave if we do not >> > > increase the human population to - how many lost souls are there Dave? You >> > > must tell us. >> > >> > His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as a >> > pre-existent soul, then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >> > superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology >> > would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly >> > coil. In reality in my view no such state exists, therefore coming into >> > existence also cannot be seen as a benefit. >> >> "If there is such a state as a post-existent soul, then we have no >> knowledge >> whether or not that stae is superior ro life as we know it. If no such >> state exists >> and coming into existence can not be seen as a benefit than being taken >> out of existence can not be seen as a harm." The reason I disagree with >> DH >> is that he acts as if we provide the resources that enable animals to >> live when >> actually the resources are provided by nature and all we do is allocate >> them >> based on selfish considerations like meat and gravy. > >Life is hard. It would be better never to exist. But how many people >are that lucky? Barely 1 in 10. LOL! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:20:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >[..] > >>>I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am requiring >>>that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are >>>demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between >>>consideration >>>of "existence" and "coming into existence". >>> >>>>>not existing. >>>> >>>> I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not. >>> >>>Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean quote >>>the >>>dictionary. >> >> Think about what the animals lives are like, and consider whether >> or not we believe the experiences they have would be more likely >> to give life a positive or a negative value to them. > >That is one meaning of "life", considering the quality of their lives, aka >AW, So do you only have trouble understanding the other meaning that I've pointed out to you? >it doesn't imply the LoL. The LoL requires it. There's more to it, but that much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be honest enough to acknowledge. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:20:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>[..] >> >>>>I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am >>>>requiring >>>>that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are >>>>demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between >>>>consideration >>>>of "existence" and "coming into existence". >>>> >>>>>>not existing. >>>>> >>>>> I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not. >>>> >>>>Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean quote >>>>the >>>>dictionary. >>> >>> Think about what the animals lives are like, and consider whether >>> or not we believe the experiences they have would be more likely >>> to give life a positive or a negative value to them. >> >>That is one meaning of "life", considering the quality of their lives, aka >>AW, > > So do you only have trouble understanding the other meaning that > I've pointed out to you? I have no trouble understanding the meanings of the word life, and I have no trouble seeing you equivocate among them. >>it doesn't imply the LoL. > > The LoL requires it. There's more to it, but that much alone is more > than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be honest enough to acknowledge. The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock and use those lives as a justification for killing them. It's an inadmissable circular sophistry, which I have explained *again* today. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:20:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>[..] >>> >>>>>I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am >>>>>requiring >>>>>that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are >>>>>demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between >>>>>consideration >>>>>of "existence" and "coming into existence". >>>>> >>>>>>>not existing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not. >>>>> >>>>>Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean quote >>>>>the >>>>>dictionary. >>>> >>>> Think about what the animals lives are like, and consider whether >>>> or not we believe the experiences they have would be more likely >>>> to give life a positive or a negative value to them. >>> >>>That is one meaning of "life", considering the quality of their lives, aka >>>AW, >> >> So do you only have trouble understanding the other meaning that >> I've pointed out to you? > >I have no trouble understanding the meanings of the word life, You can only understand one. >and I have no trouble seeing you equivocate among them. You're only aware of one. > >>it doesn't imply the LoL. >> >> The LoL requires it. There's more to it, but that much alone is more >> than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be honest enough to acknowledge. > >The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:20:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:34:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>[..] >>>> >>>>>>I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am >>>>>>requiring >>>>>>that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are >>>>>>demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between >>>>>>consideration >>>>>>of "existence" and "coming into existence". >>>>>> >>>>>>>>not existing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not. >>>>>> >>>>>>Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean >>>>>>quote >>>>>>the >>>>>>dictionary. >>>>> >>>>> Think about what the animals lives are like, and consider whether >>>>> or not we believe the experiences they have would be more likely >>>>> to give life a positive or a negative value to them. >>>> >>>>That is one meaning of "life", considering the quality of their lives, >>>>aka >>>>AW, >>> >>> So do you only have trouble understanding the other meaning that >>> I've pointed out to you? >> >>I have no trouble understanding the meanings of the word life, > > You can only understand one. Nope, I know the two that you equivocate on constantly. You equivocate between life itself, existence, and the series of (positive or negative) experiences that one has during that life. >>and I have no trouble seeing you equivocate among them. > > You're only aware of one. You're pounding sand ****wit. >> >>it doesn't imply the LoL. >>> >>> The LoL requires it. There's more to it, but that much alone is more >>> than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be honest enough to >>> acknowledge. >> >>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock > > and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt > > That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be > honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out. You don't know if the lives of the animals you eat are "fairly happy" or not. How can you base your philosophy on something you give no definition for and have no knowledge of? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
dh@. wrote: > On 5 Aug 2006 09:26:32 -0700, wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > >> On 4 Aug 2006 06:56:02 -0700, wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> ups.com... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> snip... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far > >> >> >> > more brutal > >> >> >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" > >> >> >> > ?? > >> >> >> > WHat > >> >> >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > e.g. a > >> >> >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? > >> > >> We know that you're trying to encourage this sort of image when > >> people think of chicken farming: > >> > >> http://tinyurl.com/zknxw > >> > >> but this is reality: > >> > >> http://tinyurl.com/er56m > >> > > > >Thanks for the pics! The second one (as you point out) is clearly the > >reality of most chicken farming today, and certainly much uglier. > > No it's not, and we both know it. Even though you won't admit it, > we both know it would be much worse if the birds feared for their > lives as your Chicken Run impression dishonsestly suggests they do. > Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was saying I -don't- think it's like the Chicken Run photo you pointed us to. > >Disgusting. > > Your dishonesty is what's disgusting, not a house full of birds eating, > drinking, and lounging about. > Really? You think a house full of birds, as in thousands of them, isn't disgusting? I dare you to spend an hour in there without a gas mask. The salaries of the employees refelect the fact that it is -very- disgusting. Would you think that a thousand dogs in a house lounging about was also not disgusting? > >> which is nothing like the dishonest distortion of reality your Kafkaesque > >> fairytale image was intended to create. The question is always ever > >> present when "discussing" animal farming with "aras": > >> > >> Why do you lie? > >> > > > >Sorry, I'm not following.. what point of mine do you dissagree with? > > First it was your original attempt to create the dishonest impression > that chicken farming is like the Chicken Run image, and now it's > still that (even though you've somewhat admitted to the original > dishonesty you will never fully admit much less apologise for it) > plus your dishonest insistence that reality is much uglier than your > original attempt at dishonesty. > I think you misunderstood. I said that the other image you sent was far more accurate than the chicken run image. > >> >> >> >================== > >> >> >> Still having a comprehension problem, eh? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help. > >> >> ==================== > >> >> It was quite clear. That you wish to remain terminally ignorant > >> >> is obvious. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Thanks for beginning your message with obvious falsehoods, to warn me > >> >that you didn't have anything to say. > >> > >> He did have something to say, and you gave the clear impression > >> that you didn't know what he had in mind: "what on earth did you > >> have in mind". > >> > > > >He did finally tell me.. it was the poisoning of animals by > >insecticides used to raise monocrops. > > Did he fail to point out the crushing, and suffocating, and being shredded, > and dis-membered, and being exposed to and eaten by predators, and having > entire habitats destroyed, etc? > The destruction of habitats is perhaps the most disgusting of all these terrible things discussed now in this thread. However, I don't think he was referring to 'habitat' when he said "a far more brutal and inhumane death". > >In my opinion, that is not much > >more gruesome than e.g. your pic#2 of the asian-american boilers.. > > It sure is to some of us, myself included. > Well no accounting for taste. Or perhaps there is some accounting possible, but at any rate I should drop the argument at this point. > >but > >I apologize for encouraging this "which is morally worse" kind of > >discussion that won't go anywhere. > > I'm really surprised you could get even this far thinking about it. > Usually veg*n/"ar" types try to deny it entirely, and/or change the > subject in various ways in their attempts to crawl away from their > own contributions to the deaths that everyone contributes to. > I understand that I contribute to deaths.. by using streets, cars, electric power, etc. I entirely agree with you that a 'holier than thou' attitude based solely on the one fact of less animal protein in the diet is untenable. I also have no problem with cutting the head off a bird, as long as I don't have to go near one of those "houses full of birds lounging around". Certainly there are far more things to look at in voting with your dollar (choosing foods) than only animal vs. plant. I'm very glad to see this point brought up a lot in this forum. Seriously, take a trip down through Arizona and southern NM to El Paso Texas (Boiler territory) and tell me what you think of the smell down there. No need to get closer than a few miles from the "house". You do seem smart enough to practice your animal sacrifice rituals in a more appealing manner, such as allowing birds to grow up with their parents or perhaps even see the light of day. If so, I'd be happy to help you pluck stuff and eat. Bon appetit. [..] > >> Would you, killer? > > > >Certainly would! I know e.g. a few hundred black angus in VT that are > >environmentally and morally vastly superior foodstuffs to most any > >large-scale veggies for exactly the reasons you point out. > > It's very unusual to see any sort of veg*n admit that...in fact it's a > first for me. Maybe I should keep it as an example for when later > you decide to disagree with yourself about it. > I'm not a very good veg*n.. I'm entirely vegetarian except when I'm eating meat. Thanks - shevek |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:48:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock >> >> and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >> >> That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be >> honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out. > >You don't know if the lives of the animals you eat are "fairly happy" or >not. How can you base your philosophy on something you give no definition >for and have no knowledge of? It couldn't matter to you, because it could have no significance to you regardless of why it does to anyone else. You're pretending to try to think about an aspect of the situation that admittedly could never have any meaning to you. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you don't think anyone should ever even bring it up....not Salt....not me...no one. So why do you try to pretend that you have some interest in a subject that you're maniacally opposed to seeing anyone even mention? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On 15 Aug 2006 07:36:12 -0700, wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: >> On 5 Aug 2006 09:26:32 -0700, wrote: >> >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> >> On 4 Aug 2006 06:56:02 -0700, wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >rick wrote: >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far >> >> >> >> > more brutal >> >> >> >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" >> >> >> >> > ?? >> >> >> >> > WHat >> >> >> >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> > e.g. a >> >> >> >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? >> >> >> >> We know that you're trying to encourage this sort of image when >> >> people think of chicken farming: >> >> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/zknxw >> >> >> >> but this is reality: >> >> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/er56m >> >> >> > >> >Thanks for the pics! The second one (as you point out) is clearly the >> >reality of most chicken farming today, and certainly much uglier. >> >> No it's not, and we both know it. Even though you won't admit it, >> we both know it would be much worse if the birds feared for their >> lives as your Chicken Run impression dishonsestly suggests they do. >> > >Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was saying I -don't- think it's >like the Chicken Run photo you pointed us to. I'm aware of that. You said reality is certainly much uglier than if the birds feared for their lives as your Chicken Run impression dishonsestly suggests they do >> >Disgusting. >> >> Your dishonesty is what's disgusting, not a house full of birds eating, >> drinking, and lounging about. >> > >Really? Your dishonesty is really disgusting to me. >You think a house full of birds, as in thousands of them, >isn't disgusting? Not necessarily. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. I've been in broiler houses and wished I could provide something that nice for my own birds. I'm guessing you've never had a similar experience. >I dare you to spend an hour in there without a gas mask. Why? >The salaries of the employees refelect the fact that it is >-very- disgusting. > >Would you think that a thousand dogs in a house lounging about was also >not disgusting? I doubt it, but it would be for reasons you could probably never figure out much less appreciate. .. . . >> Did he fail to point out the crushing, and suffocating, and being shredded, >> and dis-membered, and being exposed to and eaten by predators, and having >> entire habitats destroyed, etc? >> > >The destruction of habitats is perhaps the most disgusting of all these >terrible things discussed now in this thread. However, I don't think >he was referring to 'habitat' when he said "a far more brutal and >inhumane death". That's because you can't--or won't--put it all together. Haven't you noticed that he keeps telling you people that over and over again, killer? >> >In my opinion, that is not much >> >more gruesome than e.g. your pic#2 of the asian-american boilers.. >> >> It sure is to some of us, myself included. >> > >Well no accounting for taste. Or perhaps there is some accounting >possible, I consider it to be very significant that the animals we raise for food, do NOT know they will be killed and eaten as Salt's Logic of the Talking "ar" Pig and Chicken Run dishonestly encourage people to believe they do. >but at any rate I should drop the argument at this point. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober
cracker, lied: > On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:48:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > >****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied > >> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >>>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock > >> > >> and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt > >> > >> That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be > >> honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out. > > > >You don't know if the lives of the animals you eat are "fairly happy" or > >not. ****wit doesn't care. To him, "getting to experience life" is the greatest conceivable benefit, and it outweighs *any* bad welfare an animal might experience. > > How can you base your philosophy on something you give no definition > >for and have no knowledge of? > > It couldn't matter to you, It does matter, ****wit. Your basing of your "philosophy" - Dutch was being too generous - on something that you cannot possibly know is completely irrational and stupid. Since you advocate that others make the same illogical choice, it matters. > because it could have no significance to you > regardless of why it does to anyone else. It cannot have any significance to *any* rational person. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:48:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock >>> >>> and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>> >>> That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be >>> honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out. >> >>You don't know if the lives of the animals you eat are "fairly happy" or >>not. How can you base your philosophy on something you give no definition >>for and have no knowledge of? > > It couldn't matter to you, because it could have no significance to you > regardless of why it does to anyone else. You're pretending to try to > think > about an aspect of the situation that admittedly could never have any > meaning > to you. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you don't think anyone > should > ever even bring it up....not Salt....not me...no one. So why do you try to > pretend > that you have some interest in a subject that you're maniacally opposed to > seeing anyone even mention? Answer the question. How can you base your philosophy on something you give no definition for and have no knowledge of? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote
> I consider it to be very significant that the animals we raise for > food, > do NOT know they will be killed and eaten as Salt's Logic of the Talking > "ar" Pig and Chicken Run dishonestly encourage people to believe they do. Salt's essay on The Logic of the Larder does not imply that animals know they are destined to be killed and eaten. The "talking pig" is an allegorical tool intended to address the conscience and attitudes of the reader/consumer. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
Crossposts reduced to Netiquette limit of three groups.
On uk.environment, in >, "Dutch" wrote: Correction: Someone who _sometimes_ calls himself "Dutch" wrote: <article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > Subject: What If...We All Became Vegan? alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian Are you concerned about the mistreatment of animals? Every single industry that's out there mining and farming and manufacturing and shipping and retailing the stuff you consume is destroying animal habitat. Not only are they driving the animals that live in that habitat away (onto the habitat of _other_ animals) or just killing them, but those populations become extinct: They won't have any offspring and there won't be any more of them on that habitat. Concerns about factory farming are only a small part of the animal cruelty picture. That meat-eater needs about 3.5 acres of land just to grow the food to feed the animals he/she eats. Any idea how many animals _used_ to live on that 3.5 acres? Or included it in their foraging/hunting range? The same would apply to the land where the iron ore mine, coal mine, and limestone quarry needed to just _begin_ the process of making steel, which just _begins_ the process of making a car are on. Ad infinitum. In an industrial society, _everyone_ is being cruel to animals. It isn't just people who eat factory farmed animal products. Alan -- Challenge-Response Systems are the best garbage-mail blockers in the world. Spammers and trolls can't beat them and you don't need to be a geek to use them. A brief introduction: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... > Crossposts reduced to Netiquette limit of three groups. > > On uk.environment, in >, "Dutch" wrote: > > Correction: Someone who _sometimes_ calls himself "Dutch" wrote: > > <article not downloaded: > http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > >> Subject: What If...We All Became Vegan? > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian > > Are you concerned about the mistreatment of animals? Yes, you? > Every single industry that's out there mining and farming and > manufacturing and shipping and retailing the stuff you consume is > destroying animal habitat. True. > Not only are they driving the animals that live in that habitat > away (onto the habitat of _other_ animals) or just killing > them, but those populations become extinct: They won't have any > offspring and there won't be any more of them on that habitat. True. > > Concerns about factory farming are only a small part of the > animal cruelty picture. True. > > That meat-eater needs about 3.5 acres of land just to grow the > food to feed the animals he/she eats. Probably true, but it's worth it. > Any idea how many animals _used_ to live on that 3.5 acres? Or > included it in their foraging/hunting range? Plenty, any idea how many animal used to call that vast grain-field called the western praires home? > The same would apply to the land where the iron ore mine, coal > mine, and limestone quarry needed to just _begin_ the process > of making steel, which just _begins_ the process of making > a car are on. > > Ad infinitum. > > In an industrial society, _everyone_ is being cruel to animals. > > It isn't just people who eat factory farmed animal products. You make some excellent points. > Alan > > -- > Challenge-Response Systems are the best garbage-mail blockers > in the world. Spammers and trolls can't beat them and you > don't need to be a geek to use them. A brief introduction: > http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html You call that "don't need to be a geek to use them"? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Dutch (was: What If...We All Became Vegan?)
On uk.environment, in >, "Dutch" wrote:
Correction: Someone who _sometimes_ calls himself "Dutch" wrote: > Path: text.usenetserver.com!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news2.e uro.net!62.58.50.20.MISMATCH!nntpfeed.zonnet.nl!fe eder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!sn-xt-ams-06!sn-xt-ams-08!sn-ams!sn-feed-ams-01!sn-post-ams-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail > From: "Dutch" > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search Dutch Results 1 - 100 of 7,430 posts in the last year 1 Dutchcharts 3 alt.abortion 17 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian 4 alt.atheism 4 alt.autos.studebaker 2 alt.fan.landrover 1 alt.food.vegan 1 alt.online-services.roadrunner 3 alt.sex 3 alt.sex.exhibitionism 2 alt.sex.first-time 1 alt.sex.masterbation 1 alt.sex.masturbation 1 alt.sex.movies 1 alt.sex.pictures 1 alt.sex.pictures.d 1 alt.sex.pictures.female 1 alt.sex.pictures.misc 1 alt.sex.teens 1 alt.sex.uncut 1 alt.sex.young-women.foroldermen 1 alt.sports.football.college.fla-gators 1 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.edm-oilers 13 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.vanc-canucks 1 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc 1 comp.unix.solaris 3 hr.rec.kladjenje 8 hr.rec.tv.satelitska 1 it.comp.hardware.overclock 1 microsoft.public.office.misc 1 microsoft.public.security.homeusers 1 nl.muziek 2 nl.muziek.festivals 3 nl.sport.autosport 2 nl.sport.duiken 1 pl.hum.tlumaczenia 4 rec.music.marketplace.vinyl 1 rec.pets.dogs.behavior 1 rec.travel.europe 1 sci.electronics.repair 1 talk.abortion 1 uk.business.agriculture An average of 20+ posts a day with just _this_ alias. Serious motormouth. And like all trolls, he never stops running his mouth long enough to do any research or serious thinking, and thus his comments are ignorant in the extreme. That is not a natural posting history. That's a sockpuppet's posting history. > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.en vironment > Subject: What If...We All Became Vegan? > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:11 -0700 > Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com > Message-ID: > > References: . com> . net> .com> . net> . com> > . com> > .com> > > > > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original > X-Complaints-To: > Lines: 73 > Xref: usenetserver.com alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:338215 alt.food.vegan:242089 uk.environment:187249 > X-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:00:56 EDT (text.usenetserver.com) No posting IP. Whatta surprise. <article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> If you don't have the integrity to post under a single, unique alias, then I am not interested in what you have to say. Because what you say cannot be trusted. You can say anything and then just scuttle off and hide behind another alias. So you don't get to say it to me. Alan -- Challenge-Response Systems are the best garbage-mail blockers in the world. Spammers and trolls can't beat them and you don't need to be a geek to use them. A brief introduction: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
SPAMMER TROLL ALERT!!! Alan 'no brains' Conner spews again...
delete commercial for his next to useless product.... |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] SPAMMER TROLL ALERT!!! Alan 'no brains' Conner spews again...
On uk.environment, in et>, "rick" wrote:
<article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> Does the little weenie troll not like what I have to say? Isn't that just too bad? Good thing he has a threat-rating so low that I don't even have to read his articles. Alan -- Challenge-Response Systems are the best garbage-mail blockers in the world. Spammers and trolls can't beat them and you don't need to be a geek to use them. A brief introduction: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] SPAMMER TROLL ALERT!!! Alan 'no brains' Conner spews again...
"Alan Connor" idiot with no equal wrote in message ... > On uk.environment, in > et>, "rick" > wrote: > > <article not downloaded: > http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > > Does the little weenie troll not like what I have to say? > > Isn't that just too bad? > > Good thing he has a threat-rating so low that I don't even > have to read his articles. > ================================ Ah, but you still do fool!!! That's what makes you such a fun spammer.... snip commercial |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Dutch (was: What If...We All Became Vegan?)
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... > On uk.environment, in >, "Dutch" wrote: > > Correction: Someone who _sometimes_ calls himself "Dutch" wrote: > >> Path: >> text.usenetserver.com!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news2.e uro.net!62.58.50.20.MISMATCH!nntpfeed.zonnet.nl!fe eder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!sn-xt-ams-06!sn-xt-ams-08!sn-ams!sn-feed-ams-01!sn-post-ams-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail >> From: "Dutch" > > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search > Dutch > Results 1 - 100 of 7,430 posts in the last year > 1 Dutchcharts > 3 alt.abortion > 17 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian > 4 alt.atheism > 4 alt.autos.studebaker > 2 alt.fan.landrover > 1 alt.food.vegan > 1 alt.online-services.roadrunner > 3 alt.sex > 3 alt.sex.exhibitionism > 2 alt.sex.first-time > 1 alt.sex.masterbation > 1 alt.sex.masturbation > 1 alt.sex.movies > 1 alt.sex.pictures > 1 alt.sex.pictures.d > 1 alt.sex.pictures.female > 1 alt.sex.pictures.misc > 1 alt.sex.teens > 1 alt.sex.uncut > 1 alt.sex.young-women.foroldermen > 1 alt.sports.football.college.fla-gators > 1 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.edm-oilers > 13 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.vanc-canucks > 1 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc > 1 comp.unix.solaris > 3 hr.rec.kladjenje > 8 hr.rec.tv.satelitska > 1 it.comp.hardware.overclock > 1 microsoft.public.office.misc > 1 microsoft.public.security.homeusers > 1 nl.muziek > 2 nl.muziek.festivals > 3 nl.sport.autosport > 2 nl.sport.duiken > 1 pl.hum.tlumaczenia > 4 rec.music.marketplace.vinyl > 1 rec.pets.dogs.behavior > 1 rec.travel.europe > 1 sci.electronics.repair > 1 talk.abortion > 1 uk.business.agriculture > > An average of 20+ posts a day with just _this_ alias. Most of those are someone else. > Serious motormouth. And like all trolls, he never stops running > his mouth long enough to do any research or serious thinking, and > thus his comments are ignorant in the extreme. Heh, ironic comment. > That is not a natural posting history. That's a sockpuppet's > posting history. It might be, but it's not mine. >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.en vironment >> Subject: What If...We All Became Vegan? >> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:11 -0700 >> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com >> Message-ID: > >> References: . com> >> . net> >> .com> >> . net> >> . com> >> > >> . com> >> > >> .com> >> > >> > >> > >> X-Priority: 3 >> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 >> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original >> X-Complaints-To: >> Lines: 73 >> Xref: usenetserver.com alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:338215 >> alt.food.vegan:242089 uk.environment:187249 >> X-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:00:56 EDT (text.usenetserver.com) > > No posting IP. Whatta surprise. I don't hide my IP, if it's not there it's because Supernews doesn't transmit it. You want it? > > <article not downloaded: > http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > > If you don't have the integrity to post under a single, unique > alias, then I am not interested in what you have to say. Dutch is the only alias I use. > Because what you say cannot be trusted. You can say anything and then just > scuttle off and hide behind another alias. > > So you don't get to say it to me. I just did. > Alan > > -- > Challenge-Response Systems are the best garbage-mail blockers > in the world. Spammers and trolls can't beat them and you > don't need to be a geek to use them. A brief introduction: > http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html Now I *seriously* mistrust your judgment. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] SPAMMER TROLL ALERT!!! Alan 'no brains' Conner spews again...
"rick" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Alan Connor" idiot with no equal wrote in message > ... >> On uk.environment, in >> et>, "rick" wrote: >> >> <article not downloaded: >> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> >> >> Does the little weenie troll not like what I have to say? >> >> Isn't that just too bad? >> >> Good thing he has a threat-rating so low that I don't even >> have to read his articles. >> ================================ > Ah, but you still do fool!!! That's what makes you such a fun > spammer.... That guy is seriously messed up. Does someone have a bot autoresponding instantly to every post he makes? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] SPAMMER TROLL ALERT!!! Alan 'no brains' Conner spewsagain...
Dutch wrote:
> "rick" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>"Alan Connor" idiot with no equal wrote in message ... >> >>>On uk.environment, in k.net>, "rick" wrote: >>> >>><article not downloaded: >>>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> >>> >>>Does the little weenie troll not like what I have to say? >>> >>>Isn't that just too bad? >>> >>>Good thing he has a threat-rating so low that I don't even >>>have to read his articles. >>>================================ >> >>Ah, but you still do fool!!! That's what makes you such a fun >>spammer.... > > > That guy is seriously messed up. Does someone have a bot autoresponding > instantly to every post he makes? He has made a *lot* of enemies over the years in misc.survivalism, so I wouldn't be surprised. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] SPAMMER TROLL ALERT!!! Alan 'no brains' Conner spews again...
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > Dutch wrote: > >> "rick" > wrote in message >> ink.net... >> >>>"Alan Connor" idiot with no equal wrote in message ... >>> >>>>On uk.environment, in nk.net>, "rick" wrote: >>>> >>>><article not downloaded: >>>>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> >>>> >>>>Does the little weenie troll not like what I have to say? >>>> >>>>Isn't that just too bad? >>>> >>>>Good thing he has a threat-rating so low that I don't even >>>>have to read his articles. >>>>================================ >>> >>>Ah, but you still do fool!!! That's what makes you such a fun >>>spammer.... >> >> >> That guy is seriously messed up. Does someone have a bot autoresponding >> instantly to every post he makes? > > He has made a *lot* of enemies over the years in misc.survivalism, so I > wouldn't be surprised. I'm not surpised he's made enemies, he seems to make a point of trying to. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] SPAMMER TROLL ALERT!!! Alan 'no brains' Conner spews again...
> >> That guy is seriously messed up. Does someone have a bot autoresponding
> >> instantly to every post he makes? > > > > He has made a *lot* of enemies over the years in misc.survivalism, so I > > wouldn't be surprised. > > I'm not surpised he's made enemies, he seems to make a point of trying to. > > Are we talking about Leif? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:04:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote >> I consider it to be very significant that the animals we raise for >> food, >> do NOT know they will be killed and eaten as Salt's Logic of the Talking >> "ar" Pig and Chicken Run dishonestly encourage people to believe they do. > >Salt's essay on The Logic of the Larder does not imply that animals know >they are destined to be killed and eaten. "what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me . . . " >The "talking pig" is an allegorical tool intended to address the conscience >and attitudes of the reader/consumer. "in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery . . . " Just like in Chicken Run http://tinyurl.com/fgtu9 the attempt is made to create the contemptible and dishonest impression that the animals suffer from knowledge that they will be killed by humans. You make it obvious that you're in favor of "ar" when you oppose considering AW supporting facts like what the animals gain, while at the same time you promote "ar" supporting, dishonest kafkaesque fantasies like The Talking Pig and Chicken Run. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:57:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:48:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock >>>> >>>> and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>>> >>>> That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be >>>> honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out. >>> >>>You don't know if the lives of the animals you eat are "fairly happy" or >>>not. How can you base your philosophy on something you give no definition >>>for and have no knowledge of? I believe that most broilers, turkeys, cage free layers, beef cattle and dairy cattle have decent lives of positive value. >> It couldn't matter to you, because it could have no significance to you >> regardless of why it does to anyone else. You're pretending to try to >> think >> about an aspect of the situation that admittedly could never have any >> meaning >> to you. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you don't think anyone >> should >> ever even bring it up....not Salt....not me...no one. So why do you try to >> pretend >> that you have some interest in a subject that you're maniacally opposed to >> seeing anyone even mention? > >Answer the question. I will. I challenge you to answer mine. You can't. Here it is again: why do you try to pretend that you have some interest in a subject that you're maniacally opposed to seeing anyone even mention? >How can you base your philosophy on something you give >no definition for and have no knowledge of? I don't. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] SPAMMER TROLL ALERT!!! Alan 'no brains' Conner spews again...
"Misterina" > wrote in message ... >> >> That guy is seriously messed up. Does someone have a bot >> >> autoresponding >> >> instantly to every post he makes? >> > >> > He has made a *lot* of enemies over the years in misc.survivalism, so I >> > wouldn't be surprised. >> >> I'm not surpised he's made enemies, he seems to make a point of trying >> to. >> >> > > Are we talking about Leif? No |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:04:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote >>> I consider it to be very significant that the animals we raise for >>> food, >>> do NOT know they will be killed and eaten as Salt's Logic of the Talking >>> "ar" Pig and Chicken Run dishonestly encourage people to believe they >>> do. >> >>Salt's essay on The Logic of the Larder does not imply that animals know >>they are destined to be killed and eaten. > > "what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered > moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a > pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of > ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first > determined > to kill and devour me . . . " > >>The "talking pig" is an allegorical tool intended to address the >>conscience >>and attitudes of the reader/consumer. > > "in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise considered, > nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery . . . " > > Just like in Chicken Run http://tinyurl.com/fgtu9 the attempt is > made to > create the contemptible and dishonest impression that the animals suffer > from > knowledge that they will be killed by humans. You make it obvious that > you're > in favor of "ar" when you oppose considering AW supporting facts like what > the animals gain, while at the same time you promote "ar" supporting, > dishonest > kafkaesque fantasies like The Talking Pig and Chicken Run. So you don't understand what an allegory is.. I'm shocked! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:57:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:48:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:32:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The LoL requires that you look at the lives of lifestock >>>>> >>>>> and also that "their life is a fairly happy one." - Salt >>>>> >>>>> That much alone is more than you'll ever be able to appreciate or be >>>>> honest enough to acknowledge, as I have already correctly pointed out. >>>> >>>>You don't know if the lives of the animals you eat are "fairly happy" or >>>>not. How can you base your philosophy on something you give no >>>>definition >>>>for and have no knowledge of? > > I believe that most broilers, turkeys, cage free layers, beef cattle > and dairy > cattle have decent lives of positive value. Easy to say.. but you eat pork and non-free-range eggs anyway, so what's the point? >>> It couldn't matter to you, because it could have no significance to >>> you >>> regardless of why it does to anyone else. You're pretending to try to >>> think >>> about an aspect of the situation that admittedly could never have any >>> meaning >>> to you. Not only can you not appreciate it, but you don't think anyone >>> should >>> ever even bring it up....not Salt....not me...no one. So why do you try >>> to >>> pretend >>> that you have some interest in a subject that you're maniacally opposed >>> to >>> seeing anyone even mention? >> >>Answer the question. > > I will. I challenge you to answer mine. You can't. Here it is again: > why > do you try to pretend that you have some interest in a subject that you're > maniacally opposed to seeing anyone even mention? That's a stupid question, my interest in the topic is chiefly based on people having dumb wrong-headed ideas like you. >>How can you base your philosophy on something you give >>no definition for and have no knowledge of? > > I don't. Yes you do. You claim to believe that some animals have decent lives but you don't know. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
Dutch (was: What If...We All Became Vegan?)
Alan Connor wrote: > On uk.environment, in >, "Dutch" wrote: > > Correction: Someone who _sometimes_ calls himself "Dutch" wrote: > > > Path: text.usenetserver.com!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news2.e uro.net!62.58.50.20.MISMATCH!nntpfeed.zonnet.nl!fe eder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!sn-xt-ams-06!sn-xt-ams-08!sn-ams!sn-feed-ams-01!sn-post-ams-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail > > From: "Dutch" > > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search > Dutch > Results 1 - 100 of 7,430 posts in the last year > 1 Dutchcharts > 3 alt.abortion > 17 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian > 4 alt.atheism > 4 alt.autos.studebaker > 2 alt.fan.landrover > 1 alt.food.vegan > 1 alt.online-services.roadrunner > 3 alt.sex > 3 alt.sex.exhibitionism > 2 alt.sex.first-time > 1 alt.sex.masterbation > 1 alt.sex.masturbation > 1 alt.sex.movies > 1 alt.sex.pictures > 1 alt.sex.pictures.d > 1 alt.sex.pictures.female > 1 alt.sex.pictures.misc > 1 alt.sex.teens > 1 alt.sex.uncut > 1 alt.sex.young-women.foroldermen > 1 alt.sports.football.college.fla-gators > 1 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.edm-oilers > 13 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.vanc-canucks > 1 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc > 1 comp.unix.solaris > 3 hr.rec.kladjenje > 8 hr.rec.tv.satelitska > 1 it.comp.hardware.overclock > 1 microsoft.public.office.misc > 1 microsoft.public.security.homeusers > 1 nl.muziek > 2 nl.muziek.festivals > 3 nl.sport.autosport > 2 nl.sport.duiken > 1 pl.hum.tlumaczenia > 4 rec.music.marketplace.vinyl > 1 rec.pets.dogs.behavior > 1 rec.travel.europe > 1 sci.electronics.repair > 1 talk.abortion > 1 uk.business.agriculture > > An average of 20+ posts a day with just _this_ alias. > > Serious motormouth. And like all trolls, he never stops running > his mouth long enough to do any research or serious thinking, and > thus his comments are ignorant in the extreme. > > That is not a natural posting history. That's a sockpuppet's > posting history. > > > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.en vironment > > Subject: What If...We All Became Vegan? > > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:00:11 -0700 > > Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com > > Message-ID: > > > References: . com> . net> .com> . net> . com> > . com> > .com> > > > > > X-Priority: 3 > > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 > > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original > > X-Complaints-To: > > Lines: 73 > > Xref: usenetserver.com alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:338215 alt.food.vegan:242089 uk.environment:187249 > > X-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:00:56 EDT (text.usenetserver.com) > > No posting IP. Whatta surprise. > > <article not downloaded: > http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > > If you don't have the integrity to post under a single, unique > alias, then I am not interested in what you have to say. > > Because what you say cannot be trusted. You can say anything and then just scuttle off and hide behind another alias. > > So you don't get to say it to me. > > Alan > Thanks for the stats. Anyway, single unique alias my ass. I've heard this debate a lot before, "I only read signed messages".. we should all have a public key sig or else why would you bother reading? After all, I could just show up tomorrow under a different name. Actually, signed messages wouldn't eliminate that option would they. The truth is, those with the skills to stand strong behind a new name or no name are likely more worthy of our attention then those who hide behind an established one. And those with an established name are likely to have no real anonymity. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Intereting Vegan Problem - Please Help : How to get Caterers toGet/Provide Vegan Food. | Vegan | |||
Vegan Cooking at International Vegan Festival | Vegetarian cooking | |||
Vegan baking basics for a non-vegan | Vegan | |||
It's amazing how in a Vegan group someone could hate a Doctor becausehe's a vegan | Vegan | |||
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins | Vegan |