 |
|
| 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
|
|||
|
|||
Honest Environmental Manifesto (was: Dutch <snip>)
On uk.environment, in .com>, " wrote:
Correction: Another obnoxious child playing with his mommy's computer who mistakenly thinks that everyone has to read his articles, and who _sometimes_ calls himself ", wrote: Who cares? He has zero credibility and poses no threat of any kind. <article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> Here's what the psuedo-progressives on these groups would say if they were honest: I'm an Environmentalist. I want to Save the Earth! Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it. Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out, and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to visit or live or work in the future. I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air polluted! And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all) out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around! No. I'm not cutting back on my use of wood products. What _I_ consume doesn't hurt the planet, because _I_ am an Environmentalist. Besides, there are 1000 shares of Deforestation International in my Retirement Portfolio, and it's paying very well. Not to mention the fact that DI donates over $100,000 a year to my favorite Environmental Organization. Not only do I want an enormous amount of stuff (more every year), and to preserve the environment that _I_ live in, but I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in order to make all the stuff I want. Alan 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
|
|||
|
|||
|
[reprise] Honest Environmental Manifesto
On uk.environment, in >, "Alan Connor" wrote:
<snip> This is a little better: Here's what the psuedo-progressives on these groups would say if they were honest: --------------------------------------------------------- I'm an Environmentalist. I want to Save the Earth! Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it. Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out, and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to visit or live or work in the future. I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air polluted! And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all) out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around! No. I'm not cutting back on my use of wood products. What _I_ consume doesn't hurt the planet, because _I_ am an Environmentalist. Besides, there are 1000 shares of Deforestation International in my Retirement Portfolio, and it's paying very well. Not to mention the fact that DI donates over $100,000 a year to my favorite Environmental Organization. Not only do I want an enormous amount of stuff every year, and to preserve the environment that _I_ live in, but I most certainly do not want to see or associate with any of those unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in order to make all the stuff I want. Now you'll have to excuse me. I must light some joss sticks on my altar to the God of Technology: "Father Science, bless us with wonderful machines that will act as a substitute for the Earth's ecosystem. We can't even make a tiny, sustainable space station yet, so please hurry! Amen" ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:27:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> AGAIN asked a bewildered fool: > >> 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 No, it's an excellent question. But obviously you are too stupid to answer it. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:22:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><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.. It's a supposedly moral story often involving animals, and probably always a fantasy. We have yet to see one that is not a fantasy, and you're not capable of providing an example of one that is not. |
|
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, 17 Aug 2006 12:22:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><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.. > > It's a supposedly moral story often involving animals, It's not the story, it's the means of telling it, it doesn't have to be a moral story, and doesn't have to be animals, it can be anything. An old tree or a house could talk about the seasons, the years and people passing by. > and probably always > a fantasy. We have yet to see one that is not a fantasy, and you're not > capable of providing an example of one that is not. It's a rhetorical device used to create interest in literature. You're using it as a lame excuse to dismiss an argument you don't like. |
|
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 Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:27:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> AGAIN asked a bewildered fool: >> >>> 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 > > No Yes it is, the subject obviously interests me, I am vehemently opposed to your position on the subject, because it's corrupt. Humans have no business taking pride in the fact that animals we raise to eat get to experience life, that is criminal sophistry. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
|
Honest Environmental Manifesto (was: Dutch <snip>)
Alan Connor wrote: > On uk.environment, in .com>, " wrote: > > Correction: Another obnoxious child playing with his mommy's > computer who mistakenly thinks that everyone has to read his > articles, and who _sometimes_ calls himself ", > wrote: > > Who cares? He has zero credibility and poses no threat of any > kind. > Thank you for paraphrasing. That is pretty much what I wrote about your fear of anonymous posters. They pose no threat of any kind and have zero credibility... exactly a neutral position and a difficult one to argue from. > > Here's what the psuedo-progressives on these groups would > say if they were honest: > > I'm an Environmentalist. > > I want to Save the Earth! > > Errr....That is, I want to save what's _left_ of the Earth after > me and all my friends get _our_ pieces of it. > > Oh. And those pieces need to be extracted and transformed into > all the stuff I want a long way from where I live and hang out, > and for that matter, a long way from _anywhere_ I might want to > visit or live or work in the future. > > I _really_ don't want _my_ view defaced or _my_ water or air > polluted! > > And when I take my kids (it's all those black and brown > and yellow primitives who are causing overpopulation, after all) > out to the Public Forests once a year, they better be nice and > pretty and there better not be any clearcuts around! > > No. I'm not cutting back on my use of wood products. What > _I_ consume doesn't hurt the planet, because _I_ am an > Environmentalist. Besides, there are 1000 shares of Deforestation > International in my Retirement Portfolio, and it's paying very > well. Not to mention the fact that DI donates over $100,000 a > year to my favorite Environmental Organization. > > Not only do I want an enormous amount of stuff (more every year), > and to preserve the environment that _I_ live in, but I most > certainly do not want to see or associate with any of those > unenlightened subhumans who are trashing the planet in order to > make all the stuff I want. > LOL .. too many like that you're right on target. I hope and trust there are a growing number who don't want an enormous amount of stuff, and who are willing to associate with and help educate those unenlightened ones who trash their own selves. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:37:27 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:22:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><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.. >> >> It's a supposedly moral story often involving animals, > >It's not the story, it's the means of telling it, it doesn't have to be a >moral story, It has a meaning or moral to it. >and doesn't have to be animals, it can be anything. An old tree >or a house could talk about the seasons, the years and people passing by. It's still fantasy, bringing immediately to mind the question of whether or not a tree could have awareness much less opinion about people passing by, and what that opinion--or any sort of thoughts--would be from the perspective of the tree. And then if it went on to knowing intimate things about the passers by, which just everyone could not know much less some damn tree they walk by sometimes, then it gets to idiocy and a person must stop and think: okay, so the tree has nothing to do with it other than as a lame excuse for the writer to present HIS/HER pov any way he/she wants to, simply by attempting to make it seem like the object has the ideas instead of who is actually trying to promote them. The suggestion that a tree/pig could have ideas it could not is fantasy, and people like Salt use that sort of fantasy to promote their own ideas, and that's ALL it is. So Salt used the fantasy of a pig who suffers from the knowledge that he will be killed and butchered--all the way to knowing what sort of food he will be prepared as!--in his obvious attempt to get people to feel that pigs suffer from such knowledge. I've even had "aras"--probably you yourself--say something like: 'how would you like to live knowing you're going to be killed and eaten...'. Some people are fooled by it, and it's one of the dishonest things people like yourself want everyone to believe even if you don't quite believe it yourself. I know from personal experience that you're full of shit. >> and probably always >> a fantasy. We have yet to see one that is not a fantasy, and you're not >> capable of providing an example of one that is not. > >It's a rhetorical device used to create interest in literature. It's a trick to try to sneak people into accepting ideas or feelings about an issue or issues. It's nothing more, unless it also has some humorous attempt behind it like my typing cow. >You're using it as a lame excuse to dismiss an argument you don't like. What I'm using to dismiss the "argument" is the fact that you haven't supported one, or even really defined what "it" is. The pig is only fantasy, so we'll eliminate it and have remaining only "ar" Salt. "ar" is telling us it's sophistry to consider the fact that some animals raised for food have lives of positive value, even when their lives are not only decent, but are "fairly happy"! It IS a fact that takes place, so why would "aras" like Salt and quite obviously yourself, want to prevent people from taking it into consideration? That reminds me of another of YOUR "arguments" which we had forgotten about. It's amusing, but also your greatest fear. Your list of "dozens" is now back up to three, no thanks to you but only to me: This is your current complete list of "dozens" of "arguments" against considering the lives of livestock as well as their deaths 08/20/06: 1. an imaginary talking pig says not to. 2. you claim that doing so is somehow "analagous to taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." 3. you feel that considering the animals' lives causes a person to lose imaginary moral browny points, which they could somehow maintain simply by refusing to consider the animals. Fantasy. All Big Three of them. Amusingly you can't even see the fact, while I can't ignore it. Back to the question of why "aras" of yesterday like Salt, and today like yourself, are maniacally opposed to people considering the fact that some livestock have "fairly happy" lives of positive value? There's only one answer: "aras" are terrified people might consider that some options such as lives of positive value ie. decent AW, could be ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of livestock ie. "ar". Again I present proof of the fact: __________________________________________________ _______ 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. "Dutch" insanely howled in obvious, desperate terror: 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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:40:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:27:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> AGAIN asked a bewildered fool: >>> >>>> 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 >> >> No > >Yes it is, the subject obviously interests me, I am vehemently opposed to >your position on the subject, because it's corrupt. Humans have no business >taking pride in the fact that animals we raise to eat get to experience >life, Whether a person can take pride in their stock or not is up to the individual and certainly not the likes of yourself or Salt. Whether a person can take pride in contributing to lives of positive value for livestock is also up to the individual and certainly not the likes of yourself or Salt. It's fortunate that people can think for themselves and are not hindered by restrictions the likes of yourself and Salt try to impose, or there wouldn't even be enough interest in how livestock are raised to make cage free eggs profitable for anyone. Unfortunately, it's because of the likes of yourself and Salt that veg*n products are easily available, while products which provide decent lives for livestock are not. >that is criminal sophistry. Claiming that refusing to consider the animals' lives provides more browny points than doing so is a sign of insanity imo, whether criminal or not, it's insanity based on selfishness of incredible purity. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,uk.environment
|
|||
|
|||
|
Honest Environmental Manifesto (was: Dutch <snip>)
On uk.environment, in .com>, " wrote:
Correction: A dishonest coward who _sometimes_ calls himself the above, wrote: <article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> If the truth hurts, then change you ways. Posting bitchy crap that your intended target doesn't even read won't save the planet. Hmmmm...Come to think of it, it will work as well as anything else you are doing. 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,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:37:27 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:22:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> 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.. >>> >>> It's a supposedly moral story often involving animals, >> >>It's not the story, it's the means of telling it, it doesn't have to be a >>moral story, > > It has a meaning or moral to it. Of course it has a meaning. >>and doesn't have to be animals, it can be anything. An old tree >>or a house could talk about the seasons, the years and people passing by. > > It's still fantasy, bringing immediately to mind the question of > whether > or not a tree could have awareness Not unless the reader is four years old, that's how juvenile this argument of yours is. > much less opinion about people > passing by, and what that opinion--or any sort of thoughts--would be > from the perspective of the tree. And then if it went on to knowing > intimate things about the passers by, which just everyone could not > know much less some damn tree they walk by sometimes, then it > gets to idiocy and a person must stop and think: okay, so the tree > has nothing to do with it other than as a lame excuse for the writer > to present HIS/HER pov any way he/she wants to, simply by attempting > to make it seem like the object has the ideas instead of who is actually > trying to promote them. Of course it's point of view of the author, what else could it be? >The suggestion that a tree/pig could have > ideas it could not is fantasy, There's that juvenile objection again. > and people like Salt use that sort of fantasy > to promote their own ideas, and that's ALL it is. That's not a valid criticism, everyone writes in order to present their ideas, of course that's what it is. No-one has suggested otherwise. > So Salt used the fantasy > of a pig who suffers from the knowledge that he will be killed and > butchered--all the way to knowing what sort of food he will be prepared > as!--in his obvious attempt to get people to feel that pigs suffer from > such knowledge. That is NOT the message of this essay, it's your desperate, invalid, strawman, juvenile objection. > I've even had "aras"--probably you yourself--say > something like: 'how would you like to live knowing you're going to > be killed and eaten...'. That would be an invalid argument, but that argument is never presented here. > Some people are fooled by it, and it's one of the > dishonest things people like yourself want everyone to believe even if > you don't quite believe it yourself. I know from personal experience that > you're full of shit. Since you're the one presenting silly strawman arguments I would question where the pile of shit is sitting. >>> and probably always >>> a fantasy. We have yet to see one that is not a fantasy, and you're not >>> capable of providing an example of one that is not. >> >>It's a rhetorical device used to create interest in literature. > > It's a trick to try to sneak people into accepting ideas or feelings > about an issue or issues. It's not a trick unless you are four or have an equivalent mentality. > It's nothing more, unless it also has some > humorous attempt behind it like my typing cow. It's used to create reader interest, not to suggest that trees or pigs can speak English, don't be an idiot. >>You're using it as a lame excuse to dismiss an argument you don't like. > > What I'm using to dismiss the "argument" is the fact that you haven't > supported one, or even really defined what "it" is. "It" is moral thinking. Moral thinking excludes circular self-justifying forms of argument such as The Logic of the Larder or anything like it. An example would be a man who goes to Thailand to patronize child prostitutes, then justifies it by saying that if it weren't for him the families of those girls would probably go hungry, which is *true*, but it does not change whether or not it is right for him to do it. The right or wrong of an act is fundamental to the action, not based on or rationalized by some presumed good outcome. I have presented countless such examples which form the "dozens" I have alluded to. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,sci.environment,uk.environment,alt.global-warming
|
|||
|
|||
|
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:52:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>dh pointed out: > >> Salt used the fantasy >> of a pig who suffers from the knowledge that he will be killed and >> butchered--all the way to knowing what sort of food he will be prepared >> as!--in his obvious attempt to get people to feel that pigs suffer from >> such knowledge. > >That is NOT the message It is OBVIOUSLY an impression you "aras" want people to accept, which is why you are horrified to see the dishonesty of it pointed out. Duh. |
| 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 | |||
Linear Mode
