| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:23:00 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>>> They exploit AW
>>>>
>>>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>>>>the animals exist. Period.
>>>
>>> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why
>>>would "ARAs" care about it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>>>>lives, that is for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be
>>>>>OPPOSED
>>>>>to the elimination objective
>>>>
>>>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>>>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>>>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all
>>>
>>> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us
>>>to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would?
>>
>>If they had their way, NONE
>
>
> Then people who want to see them provided with decent lives
You mean, people who want to see them exist, period...
You can't get away with your false choice; you'll be
called on it every time.
>>, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by
>>wanting to deny life to future livestock.
>
>
> It means they have a different objective which conflicts with providing
> decent lives.
"Providing decent lives" ONLY matters if they're going
to live. Providing life at all is not providing them a
benefit.
>>Get past that idea, it's bull****,
>>nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life
>>to mice in your bedroom by not raising them.
>
>
> I've explained why they are completely different
Your "explanation" was self-serving bull****.
>>The implications of AR/veganism
>>are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and
>>me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe
>>we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully
>>so,
>
>
> That **** is only about YOU, as I've pointed out. YOUR/MY personal benefits
> are a completely different thing than those of the animals,
The animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
"decent" lives for them ONLY is a consideration IF
they exist.
>>not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get
>>a friggin grip.
>
>
> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
> food,
And "vegans" believe it is, and YOU don't even make an
attempt to persuade them that they're wrong.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>dh@. pointed out:
>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
>> food,
>
>And "vegans" believe it is
Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >dh@. pointed out:
>
> >> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
> >> food,
> >
> >And "vegans" believe it is
>
> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
You need to try to persuade them that their belief - that raising
animals to eat them is cruel _per se_ - is erroneous. So far, in over
six years, you have never tried. Your bull**** about life being a
"benefit" does not address their beliefs, and everyone thinks you're
nuts for clinging to it as it it is an insightful theory. It isn't.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>
>>dh@. pointed out:
>
>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise
>>> them for
>>> food,
>>
>>And "vegans" believe it is
>
> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they say,
or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
>
> >> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
> >> food,
> >
> >And "vegans" believe it is, and YOU don't even make an
> >attempt to persuade them that they're wrong.
>
> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
Forget that; it's a stupid question. Here's a good question: Why
won't you attempt to persuade "vegans" that they're wrong?
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>>
>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>
>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise
>>>> them for
>>>> food,
>>>
>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>
>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>
>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they say,
>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
about them because of imaginary ideas.
>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
think about. I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass for pointing
them out, since it's either that or face the fact that YOU/"THEY"
are the real dumbasses for having to have it pointed out to you,
and then going on denying the significance of billions of animals
for years after that. I wonder how many billion animals have lived
since YOU/"ARAs" first insisted that their lives are of no significance.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 21 Nov 2005 17:15:42 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dh@. lied:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. pointed out:
>>
>> >> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
>> >> food,
>> >
>> >And "vegans" believe it is
>>
>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>
>You need to try to persuade them that their belief - that raising
>animals to eat them is cruel _per se_ - is erroneous. So far, in over
>six years, you have never tried.
How have you?
>Your bull**** about life being a
>"benefit" does not address their beliefs, and everyone thinks you're
>nuts for clinging to it as it it is an insightful theory. It isn't.
In cases when it is for farm animals, "ARAs" want to disregard
the fact because it works against their objective to eliminate all of
them. It remains none the less, regardless of how much people
neglect or refuse to take it into consideration.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied:
> On 21 Nov 2005 17:15:42 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> >> >dh@. lied:
> >>
> >> >> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
> >> >> food,
> >> >
> >> >And "vegans" believe it is
> >>
> >> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
> >
> >You need to try to persuade them that their belief - that raising
> >animals to eat them is cruel _per se_ - is erroneous. So far, in over
> >six years, you have never tried.
>
> How have you?
LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
jollies by pretending you haven't.
In any case, it is irrelevant *how* I have done it; the relevant fact
is that I have, and you haven't. All you've offered in over six years
of pissing away time is the same stale, illogical absurdity about the
goodness of causing animals to "experience life", as if that were some
kind of "benefit" to them. It isn't.
>
> >Your bull**** about life being a
> >"benefit" does not address their beliefs, and everyone thinks you're
> >nuts for clinging to it as it it is an insightful theory. It isn't.
>
> In cases when it is for farm animals,
It NEVER is for farm animals or any other kind of animal, including
humans: coming into existence NEVER is a benefit, for well documented
reasons.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> lied
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>>dh@. lied:
> >>
> >>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise
> >>>> them for
> >>>> food,
> >>>
> >>>And "vegans" believe it is
> >>
> >> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
> >
> >You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they say,
> >or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
> >nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>
> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>
> >In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
> >message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>
> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs"
You aren't pointing out any facts. You're blabbering on pointlessly
about an obvious absurdity.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:aa69o1l4q39hqo1v865rkoqq8kuukn2ma6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>>>
>>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise
>>>>> them for
>>>>> food,
>>>>
>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>
>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>
>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they
>>say,
>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>
> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
> about them because of imaginary ideas.
Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe that if
those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals or
more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the same
pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
livestock. So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal lives
are a good thing per se, and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>
> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
> think about.
You aren't pointing out any facts, you are selecting information that you
think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
exactly what ARAs do.
> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass for pointing
> them out, since it's either that or face the fact that YOU/"THEY"
> are the real dumbasses for having to have it pointed out to you,
> and then going on denying the significance of billions of animals
> for years after that. I wonder how many billion animals have lived
> since YOU/"ARAs" first insisted that their lives are of no significance.
Yes, you are a dumbass, and I *am* denying the moral significance of what
you "point out". I am also pointing out to you that raising livestock does
NOT result in a net increase in the number of animals, and does NOT make the
lives of animals any better. What it does is provide humans with valuable
products, and that is sufficient reason to do it.
|
|
|
| usual suspect |
dh@. wrote:
> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
Agreed, for once.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 23 Nov 2005 09:40:34 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dh@. lied:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><dh@.> lied
>> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Canoza wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>dh@. lied:
>> >>
>> >>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise
>> >>>> them for
>> >>>> food,
>> >>>
>> >>>And "vegans" believe it is
>> >>
>> >> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>> >
>> >You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they say,
>> >or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
>> >nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>
>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>
>> >In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>> >message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>>
>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs"
>
>You aren't pointing out any facts. You're blabbering on pointlessly
>about an obvious absurdity.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Goober lied:
>dh@. asked Goo:
>
>> How have you?
>
>LOTS of ways
Explain one. And if you are able to do that--which we know you
are NOT!--then go on to explain at least two more or it will be even
more obvious that you're a liar.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:aa69o1l4q39hqo1v865rkoqq8kuukn2ma6@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>>>
>>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise
>>>>>> them for
>>>>>> food,
>>>>>
>>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>>
>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they
>>>say,
>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>
>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>
>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe that if
>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals or
>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the same
>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>livestock.
Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
animals do you say we should think about in place of:
1) pigs
2) chickens
3) turkeys
4) sheep
5) cattle
>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal lives
>are a good thing per se,
I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you would
replace the livestock with. And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we would
even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.
>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>
>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>>
>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>> think about.
>
>You aren't pointing out any facts,
That's a lie.
>you are selecting information
Proving that it was a lie.
>that you
>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
What information doesn't?
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect <club@baby.seals> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>
>Agreed, for once.
It has yet to be explained how though, so explain how
if you think you can.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:48ubo1dlshvti6lqu60a08u3of09535mq0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:aa69o1l4q39hqo1v865rkoqq8kuukn2ma6@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>>>>>
>>>>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to
>>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>> them for
>>>>>>> food,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>>>
>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they
>>>>say,
>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>so
>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>
>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
>>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>
>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe that
>>if
>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals or
>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the same
>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>livestock.
>
> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
> animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>
> 1) pigs
>
> 2) chickens
>
> 3) turkeys
>
> 4) sheep
>
> 5) cattle
Why do you need to think about any at all? If pasture and grain fields used
to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
animal species would rebound. The list is too long to even start.
>>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal
>>lives
>>are a good thing per se,
>
> I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you
> would
> replace the livestock with.
We don't need to "replace" them, the land naturally supports wildlife and
unless we have exterminated them completely the same ones will return, deer,
groundhogs, mice, birds, etc etc... on and on.
> And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
> in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we
> would
> even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.
We wouldn't "make the change", it would just happen if we stopped using
those lands and resources for livestock. I am merely pointing out that it
would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life" as you
falsely argue.
>
>>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>
>>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>>>
>>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>>> think about.
>>
>>You aren't pointing out any facts,
>
> That's a lie.
It's a fact.
>>you are selecting information
>
> Proving that it was a lie.
No
>
>>that you
>>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
>
> What information doesn't?
See above.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:13:04 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:48ubo1dlshvti6lqu60a08u3of09535mq0@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:aa69o1l4q39hqo1v865rkoqq8kuukn2ma6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to
>>>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>> them for
>>>>>>>> food,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they
>>>>>say,
>>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>>so
>>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>>
>>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
>>>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>>
>>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe that
>>>if
>>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals or
>>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the same
>>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>>livestock.
>>
>> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
>> animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>>
>> 1) pigs
>>
>> 2) chickens
>>
>> 3) turkeys
>>
>> 4) sheep
>>
>> 5) cattle
>
>Why do you need to think about any at all?
Because YOU brought it up you moron. I know that just because
you brought it up doesn't mean you have any clue what you're trying
to talk about, so this is to confirm that you don't, AGAIN.
>If pasture and grain fields used
>to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
>animal species would rebound.
Like what, and why should we support them over livestock?
>The list is too long to even start.
You just don't have a clue, which is why you are unable to
even start.
>>>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>>>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal
>>>lives
>>>are a good thing per se,
>>
>> I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you
>> would
>> replace the livestock with.
>
>We don't need to "replace" them, the land naturally supports wildlife and
>unless we have exterminated them completely the same ones will return, deer,
>groundhogs, mice, birds, etc etc... on and on.
They are there now you idiot. Name animals that aren't there that somehow
would be, and why anyone should want them instead.
>> And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
>> in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we
>> would
>> even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.
>
>We wouldn't "make the change", it would just happen if we stopped using
>those lands and resources for livestock.
That WOULD BE THE CHANGE you poor ignorant moron.
>I am merely pointing out that it
>would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life"
I disbelieve that stupid ****, which is coming from someone who
so far appears to have absolutely no clue what he's trying to talk
about (that's you).
>as you
>falsely argue.
Then explain what makes you think that we would just let land
sit around not being used for anything other than to allow wildlife
to live there. Explain how YOU/"ARAs" would get all the people
who are making money raising farm animals, to allow their land
to sit and do nothing just so these imaginary wild animals you're
fantasising about but are unable to describe can live there without
the livestock being there also.
>>>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>>
>>>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>>>> think about.
>>>
>>>You aren't pointing out any facts,
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
>It's a fact.
>
>>>you are selecting information
>>
>> Proving that it was a lie.
>
>No
>
>>
>>>that you
>>>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
>>
>> What information doesn't?
>
>See above.
There is none. If you humorously believe there is, then just quote
whatever it is you think does the job and we can laugh about your
attempt.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:bjpeo1he937svhgtpv6ipbjcdr0nfimmgv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:13:04 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:48ubo1dlshvti6lqu60a08u3of09535mq0@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:aa69o1l4q39hqo1v865rkoqq8kuukn2ma6@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to
>>>>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>>> them for
>>>>>>>>> food,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>say,
>>>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>>>so
>>>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue
>>>>> pointing
>>>>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>>>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>>>
>>>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe
>>>>that
>>>>if
>>>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals
>>>>or
>>>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the
>>>>same
>>>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>>>livestock.
>>>
>>> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
>>> animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>>>
>>> 1) pigs
>>>
>>> 2) chickens
>>>
>>> 3) turkeys
>>>
>>> 4) sheep
>>>
>>> 5) cattle
>>
>>Why do you need to think about any at all?
>
> Because YOU brought it up you moron. I know that just because
> you brought it up doesn't mean you have any clue what you're trying
> to talk about, so this is to confirm that you don't, AGAIN.
I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
products. I'm asking you why.
>>If pasture and grain fields used
>>to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
>>animal species would rebound.
>
> Like what, and why should we support them over livestock?
>
>>The list is too long to even start.
>
> You just don't have a clue, which is why you are unable to
> even start.
Don't you know what kinds of animals live in plains, bush and forested
environments?
>>>>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>>>>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal
>>>>lives
>>>>are a good thing per se,
>>>
>>> I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you
>>> would
>>> replace the livestock with.
>>
>>We don't need to "replace" them, the land naturally supports wildlife and
>>unless we have exterminated them completely the same ones will return,
>>deer,
>>groundhogs, mice, birds, etc etc... on and on.
>
> They are there now you idiot. Name animals that aren't there that
> somehow
> would be, and why anyone should want them instead.
All of the ones I mentioned, and many more, in much larger numbers. And
there are plenty are reaons to want a diversity of animals to exist in the
wild. The question is, why should we think about animal raised in captivity
as you do and not consider that they exist onlt at the expense of many more
wild animals?
>>> And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
>>> in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we
>>> would
>>> even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.
>>
>>We wouldn't "make the change", it would just happen if we stopped using
>>those lands and resources for livestock.
>
> That WOULD BE THE CHANGE you poor ignorant moron.
So what? There would be a change, whoopee ****. Different animals would
exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?
>>I am merely pointing out that it
>>would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life"
>
> I disbelieve that stupid ****, which is coming from someone who
> so far appears to have absolutely no clue what he's trying to talk
> about (that's you).
I don't care what you claim to disbelieve, make a valid argument against it.
>>as you
>>falsely argue.
>
> Then explain what makes you think that we would just let land
> sit around not being used for anything other than to allow wildlife
> to live there.
What's wrong with land being left alone? It's good for it, and for
biodiversity. We only need so many malls and condos.
> Explain how YOU/"ARAs" would get all the people
> who are making money raising farm animals, to allow their land
> to sit and do nothing just so these imaginary wild animals you're
> fantasising about but are unable to describe can live there without
> the livestock being there also.
I wouldn't "get them" to do anything. It's their land they can do what they
like with it.
>>>>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>>>
>>>>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal
>>>>>>****wittery.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>>>>> think about.
>>>>
>>>>You aren't pointing out any facts,
>>>
>>> That's a lie.
>>
>>It's a fact.
>>
>>>>you are selecting information
>>>
>>> Proving that it was a lie.
>>
>>No
>>
>>>
>>>>that you
>>>>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
>>>
>>> What information doesn't?
>>
>>See above.
>
> There is none. If you humorously believe there is, then just quote
> whatever it is you think does the job and we can laugh about your
> attempt.
You ignore the fact that livestock occupy land and consume food and water
resources that would otherwise support much more abundant and diverse
wildlife population. I personally think it's a good trade-off, but
nonetheless, saying that supporting livestock farming is somehow related to
appreciating more animals "getting to experience life" is specious, at best.
Your argument is specious on so many different levels that it never ceases
to amaze me that you carry on with it.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:bjpeo1he937svhgtpv6ipbjcdr0nfimmgv@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:13:04 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:48ubo1dlshvti6lqu60a08u3of09535mq0@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>news:aa69o1l4q39hqo1v865rkoqq8kuukn2ma6@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to
>>>>>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>>>> them for
>>>>>>>>>> food,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what
>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>say,
>>>>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue
>>>>>> pointing
>>>>>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>>>>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>>>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe
>>>>>that
>>>>>if
>>>>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals
>>>>>or
>>>>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the
>>>>>same
>>>>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>>>>livestock.
>>>>
>>>> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
>>>> animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>>>>
>>>> 1) pigs
>>>>
>>>> 2) chickens
>>>>
>>>> 3) turkeys
>>>>
>>>> 4) sheep
>>>>
>>>> 5) cattle
>>>
>>>Why do you need to think about any at all?
>>
>> Because YOU brought it up you moron. I know that just because
>> you brought it up doesn't mean you have any clue what you're trying
>> to talk about, so this is to confirm that you don't, AGAIN.
>
>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>products. I'm asking you why.
Because life has a positive value for some of them. Remember you
pasted something about that even though you never understood it?
But some of us do understand it even though YOU/"ARAs" can not.
>>>If pasture and grain fields used
>>>to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
>>>animal species would rebound.
>>
>> Like what, and why should we support them over livestock?
>>
>>>The list is too long to even start.
>>
>> You just don't have a clue, which is why you are unable to
>> even start.
>
>Don't you know what kinds of animals live in plains, bush and forested
>environments?
I don't know which particular kinds of animals YOU/"ARAs" would
like to see in place of livestock, so of course I don't know why you/'they"
would rather see those particular animals in place of livestock, and of
course don't know why everyone else would or why you/"they" do.
>>>>>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>>>>>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal
>>>>>lives
>>>>>are a good thing per se,
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you
>>>> would
>>>> replace the livestock with.
>>>
>>>We don't need to "replace" them, the land naturally supports wildlife and
>>>unless we have exterminated them completely the same ones will return,
>>>deer,
>>>groundhogs, mice, birds, etc etc... on and on.
>>
>> They are there now you idiot. Name animals that aren't there that
>> somehow
>> would be, and why anyone should want them instead.
>
>All of the ones I mentioned, and many more, in much larger numbers. And
>there are plenty are reaons to want a diversity of animals to exist in the
>wild.
Pleanty of them live in grazing areas already with grazing animals. I'm
convinced they do better in them than in your so beloved crop fields too.
>The question is, why should we think about animal raised in captivity
>as you do and not consider that they exist onlt at the expense of many more
>wild animals?
We should consider it all. It's something else you pasted one time but
YOU/"ARAs" will never understand:
__________________________________________________
_______
From: "apostate" <no@email.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:25 GMT
Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Why do you paste things that you don't understand, much less agree
with???
>>>> And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
>>>> in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we
>>>> would
>>>> even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.
>>>
>>>We wouldn't "make the change", it would just happen if we stopped using
>>>those lands and resources for livestock.
>>
>> That WOULD BE THE CHANGE you poor ignorant moron.
>
>So what? There would be a change, whoopee ****. Different animals would
>exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?
That's what I keep asking you. Why should we promote life for which
wild animals instead of livestock, as YOU/"ARAs" pretend that people
might actually do??? Who are you trying to convince me might do that
with their land, btw?
>>>I am merely pointing out that it
>>>would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life"
>>
>> I disbelieve that stupid ****, which is coming from someone who
>> so far appears to have absolutely no clue what he's trying to talk
>> about (that's you).
>
>I don't care what you claim to disbelieve, make a valid argument against it.
I have seen a number of examples where grazing land got used for
something else, and it has NEVER provided life for more wild animals.
Instead it has ALWAYS provided for much much fewer wild animals,
so of course I must believe you're just lying again.
>>>as you
>>>falsely argue.
>>
>> Then explain what makes you think that we would just let land
>> sit around not being used for anything other than to allow wildlife
>> to live there.
>
>What's wrong with land being left alone? It's good for it, and for
>biodiversity. We only need so many malls and condos.
>
>> Explain how YOU/"ARAs" would get all the people
>> who are making money raising farm animals, to allow their land
>> to sit and do nothing just so these imaginary wild animals you're
>> fantasising about but are unable to describe can live there without
>> the livestock being there also.
>
>I wouldn't "get them" to do anything. It's their land they can do what they
>like with it.
Then they will use it to make money with, not just let it sit there
so wild animals can live on it as YOU/"ARAs" dishonestly,
childishly attempt to get people to stupidly believe that it would!
YOU/"ARAs" are dishonest morons. LOL! Are you going to say
that you're really stupid enough to think that people would believe
grazing areas would just be left to sit there and provide life for wild
animals? LOL...maybe you are that stupid....in fact maybe you're
even stupid enough to believe it yourself.
>>>>>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>>>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal
>>>>>>>****wittery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>>>>>> think about.
>>>>>
>>>>>You aren't pointing out any facts,
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie.
>>>
>>>It's a fact.
>>>
>>>>>you are selecting information
>>>>
>>>> Proving that it was a lie.
>>>
>>>No
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>that you
>>>>>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
>>>>
>>>> What information doesn't?
>>>
>>>See above.
>>
>> There is none. If you humorously believe there is, then just quote
>> whatever it is you think does the job and we can laugh about your
>> attempt.
>
>You ignore the fact that livestock occupy land and consume food and water
>resources that would otherwise support much more abundant and diverse
>wildlife population.
No it would not. It would either support crops or asphalt and buildings,
you poor stupid, probably extremely ignorant (that or you are even MORE
of a liar than I already know you to be) gullible fool. Of course as always
I mean only the best in pointing out how stupid this is.
>I personally think it's a good trade-off, but
>nonetheless, saying that supporting livestock farming is somehow related to
>appreciating more animals "getting to experience life" is specious, at best.
>Your argument is specious on so many different levels
But you can name none of them, though I pointed out exactly where
YOUR/"ARAs" dishonest fantasy is just another lie.
>that it never ceases
>to amaze me that you carry on with it.
I just point out facts, some of which have been true for many thousands
of years. YOU/"ARAs" can't do anything to refute the truth, and I'm aware
of it most if not every time you/"they" lie, so of course I can carry on with it.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
[..]
>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>>products. I'm asking you why.
>
> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a negative
value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
the ones who have a positive value.
> Remember..?
I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
about them".
>
>>>>If pasture and grain fields used
>>>>to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
>>>>animal species would rebound.
>>>
>>> Like what, and why should we support them over livestock?
>>>
>>>>The list is too long to even start.
>>>
>>> You just don't have a clue, which is why you are unable to
>>> even start.
>>
>>Don't you know what kinds of animals live in plains, bush and forested
>>environments?
>
> I don't know which particular kinds of animals YOU/"ARAs" would
> like to see in place of livestock, so of course I don't know why
> you/'they"
> would rather see those particular animals in place of livestock, and of
> course don't know why everyone else would or why you/"they" do.
They want the land to be habitat for all native animals, not livestock,
because they object to the exploitation of animals.
I don't object to the exploitation of animals therefore I want livestock and
wildlife to share the resource.
What you want is some weird existential bull**** about raising livestock and
thinking about their "life experience" as a form of gratification or
rationalization or something. It's nonsense.
[..]
>>All of the ones I mentioned, and many more, in much larger numbers. And
>>there are plenty are reaons to want a diversity of animals to exist in the
>>wild.
>
> Pleanty of them live in grazing areas already with grazing animals. I'm
> convinced they do better in them than in your so beloved crop fields too.
Crop fields service livestock more than they service humans directly.
>>The question is, why should we think about animal raised in captivity
>>as you do and not consider that they exist onlt at the expense of many
>>more
>>wild animals?
>
> We should consider it all.
When it comes to livestock *or* wildlife competing for the same resource,
it's one or the other. You can't explain rationally why anyone should choose
to promote the "lives" of livestock over the "lives" of wildlife.
[..]
>>So what? There would be a change, whoopee ****. Different animals would
>>exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?
>
> That's what I keep asking you.
No it's not.
> Why should we promote life for which
> wild animals instead of livestock, as YOU/"ARAs" pretend that people
> might actually do???
Why not?
>Who are you trying to convince me might do that
> with their land, btw?
Pasture lands aren't good for much else. Letting land go to nature is the
easiest use of it.
>
>>>>I am merely pointing out that it
>>>>would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life"
>>>
>>> I disbelieve that stupid ****, which is coming from someone who
>>> so far appears to have absolutely no clue what he's trying to talk
>>> about (that's you).
>>
>>I don't care what you claim to disbelieve, make a valid argument against
>>it.
>
> I have seen a number of examples where grazing land got used for
> something else, and it has NEVER provided life for more wild animals.
> Instead it has ALWAYS provided for much much fewer wild animals,
> so of course I must believe you're just lying again.
That's because the land was near a suburb or highway and was expropriated
for another use. All existing pasture lands can't be used this way.
>>>>as you
>>>>falsely argue.
>>>
>>> Then explain what makes you think that we would just let land
>>> sit around not being used for anything other than to allow wildlife
>>> to live there.
>>
>>What's wrong with land being left alone? It's good for it, and for
>>biodiversity. We only need so many malls and condos.
>>
>>> Explain how YOU/"ARAs" would get all the people
>>> who are making money raising farm animals, to allow their land
>>> to sit and do nothing just so these imaginary wild animals you're
>>> fantasising about but are unable to describe can live there without
>>> the livestock being there also.
>>
>>I wouldn't "get them" to do anything. It's their land they can do what
>>they
>>like with it.
>
> Then they will use it to make money with, not just let it sit there
> so wild animals can live on it as YOU/"ARAs" dishonestly,
> childishly attempt to get people to stupidly believe that it would!
Like what? What good is 100,000 acres in rural Alberta except as wildlife
habitat or pasture?
[..]
>>You ignore the fact that livestock occupy land and consume food and water
>>resources that would otherwise support much more abundant and diverse
>>wildlife population.
>
> No it would not. It would either support crops or asphalt and
> buildings,
ROTFL! Let's blacktop the Western Prairies. What a moron.
>>I personally think it's a good trade-off, but
>>nonetheless, saying that supporting livestock farming is somehow related
>>to
>>appreciating more animals "getting to experience life" is specious, at
>>best.
>>Your argument is specious on so many different levels
>
> But you can name none of them,
Mice, rats, voles, groundhog, deer, beaver, moose, elk, the list could go on
for pages...
You're an idiot.
>
>>that it never ceases
>>to amaze me that you carry on with it.
>
> I just point out facts <snip>
YOU/"The ****wit" ignore the facts you don't like. You have had your stupid
little game game taken apart so many times, in so many ways it defies
counting.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied:
> On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>> How have you?
>>
>>LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
>>jollies by pretending you haven't.
>>
>>In any case, it is irrelevant *how* I have done it; the relevant fact
>>is that I have, and you haven't. All you've offered in over six years
>>of pissing away time is the same stale, illogical absurdity about the
>>goodness of causing animals to "experience life", as if that were some
>>kind of "benefit" to them. It isn't.
>
>
> Explain one.
You've seen them before. Waste your own time if you
like; not mine.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:41:00 GMT, Leif Erikson <info@dHosted.com> wrote:
>dh@. lied:
>
>> On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>> How have you?
>>>
>>>LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
>>>jollies by pretending you haven't.
>
>> Explain one.
>
>You've seen them before.
I want to see them "again". PLEASE present your opposition(s) to "AR",
but only if you have any. If you don't present any, I will understand that you
have none.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:41:00 GMT, Leif Erikson <info@dHosted.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>>On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How have you?
>>>>
>>>>LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
>>>>jollies by pretending you haven't.
>>
>>> Explain one.
>>
>>You've seen them before.
>
>
> I want to see them "again".
Then you're going to have to spend some time in Google.
You don't get to waste my time except on my terms.
You've seen them, and WE KNOW you've seen them.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>
>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>
>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>
>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a negative
>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>the ones who have a positive value.
>
>> Remember..?
>
>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>about them".
You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly can
think of no reason why you should "think about them".
>[..]
>
>>>So what? There would be a change, whoopee ****. Different animals would
>>>exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?
>>
>> That's what I keep asking you.
>
>No it's not.
Yes it is. You just can't answer it. I'll ask again: WHICH particular potential
wild animals do YOU/"ARAs" believe we should provide life for INSTEAD OF
livestock, and WHY? WHICH??? WHY????????
>> Why should we promote life for which
>> wild animals instead of livestock, as YOU/"ARAs" pretend that people
>> might actually do???
>
>Why not?
Because as far as WE know--we being YOU/"ARAs" and me--there is
no reason why we should change. Back to my question again/STILL:
WHICH particular potential wild animals...and WHY?
> >Who are you trying to convince me might do that
>> with their land, btw?
>
>Pasture lands aren't good for much else.
LOL! I believe you're lying, but I would certainly LOVE to see you explain
to a farmer that his pastures aren't good for much, so he should get rid of
his cattle and just let the mice have it...LOL!!! YOU/"ARAs" are idiots!
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
Bytes: 2969
Lines: 41
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.3.117.163
Organization: douchebag ron hamilton
Path: spool6-east.superfeed.net!propagator-sterling.newsfeeds.com!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!usenet.INS.cwru.edu!news.glorb.com!router2.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!n
ewsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!f94371c3!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1133114577 69.3.117.163 (Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:02:57 PST)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-us, fr-ch, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <kfrjo1pk1j8oshqq8h15a5b3mlf8d9j4hf@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 10:02:57 PST
Xref: spool6-east.superfeed.net alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:177191 alt.food.vegan:93353 misc.rural:196836 sci.agriculture:74826
dh@. lied:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>
>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>
>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>
>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a negative
>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>>the ones who have a positive value.
>>
>>
>>>Remember..?
>>
>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>>about them".
>
>
> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals
Dutch is not an "ara", which you know.
YOU are the selfish one. You don't think about the
conditions the animals live in AT ALL. That's just
your smokescreen. ALLLLLLLL you care about, ****WIT,
is causing the animals to live, period.
Stop *LYING*, ****wit. Your lying is immoral.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
****wit (David Harrison) lied:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>****wit (David Harrison) lied
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:13:04 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit (David Harrison) lied
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit (David Harrison) lied
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>****wit (David Harrison) lied
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>****wit (David Harrison) lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to
>>>>>>>>>>>raise
>>>>>>>>>>>them for
>>>>>>>>>>>food,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what
>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>say,
>>>>>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue
>>>>>>>pointing
>>>>>>>out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>>>>>>about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>>>>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>if
>>>>>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the
>>>>>>same
>>>>>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>>>>>livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
>>>>>animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) pigs
>>>>>
>>>>>2) chickens
>>>>>
>>>>>3) turkeys
>>>>>
>>>>>4) sheep
>>>>>
>>>>>5) cattle
>>>>
>>>>Why do you need to think about any at all?
>>>
>>> Because YOU brought it up you moron. I know that just because
>>>you brought it up doesn't mean you have any clue what you're trying
>>>to talk about, so this is to confirm that you don't, AGAIN.
>>
>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>>products. I'm asking you why.
>
>
> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
"Getting to experience life" has NO value for *any* of
them.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:39rjo1lcocdnb8h6qj69jdadp0sfdg550c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:41:00 GMT, Leif Erikson <info@dHosted.com> wrote:
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>> On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How have you?
>>>>
>>>>LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
>>>>jollies by pretending you haven't.
>>
>>> Explain one.
>>
>>You've seen them before.
>
> I want to see them "again". PLEASE present your opposition(s) to "AR",
> but only if you have any. If you don't present any, I will understand that
> you
> have none.
ROTFL!!
|
|
|
| Dutch |
Bytes: 3938
Lines: 84
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.59.144.75
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Path: spool6-east.superfeed.net!propagator-sterling.newsfeeds.com!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1133126755 64.59.144.75 (Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:25:55 MST)
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.84.228.191
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:25:55 MST
Xref: spool6-east.superfeed.net alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:177206 alt.food.vegan:93360 misc.rural:196851 sci.agriculture:74832
<dh@.> wrote in message news:kfrjo1pk1j8oshqq8h15a5b3mlf8d9j4hf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need
>>>>to
>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume
>>>>animal
>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>
>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>
>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>
>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a
>>negative
>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>>the ones who have a positive value.
NO RESPONSE
>>> Remember..?
>>
>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>>about them".
>
> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly can
> think of no reason why you should "think about them".
****wit dictionary:
Consider: v: Think about how animals get to experience life because you like
eating meat.
aka: The Logic of the Larder
>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>So what? There would be a change, whoopee ****. Different animals would
>>>>exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?
>>>
>>> That's what I keep asking you.
>>
>>No it's not.
>
> Yes it is. You just can't answer it. I'll ask again: WHICH particular
> potential
> wild animals do YOU/"ARAs" believe we should provide life for INSTEAD OF
> livestock, and WHY? WHICH??? WHY????????
Stupid, irrelevant question.
>>> Why should we promote life for which
>>> wild animals instead of livestock, as YOU/"ARAs" pretend that people
>>> might actually do???
>>
>>Why not?
>
> Because as far as WE know--we being YOU/"ARAs" and me--there is
> no reason why we should change. Back to my question again/STILL:
> WHICH particular potential wild animals...and WHY?
Stupid, irrelevant question.
>
>> >Who are you trying to convince me might do that
>>> with their land, btw?
>>
>>Pasture lands aren't good for much else.
>
> LOL! I believe you're lying, but I would certainly LOVE to see you
> explain
> to a farmer that his pastures aren't good for much, so he should get rid
> of
> his cattle and just let the mice have it...LOL!!! YOU/"ARAs" are idiots!
Stupid, irrelevant comment.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect <club@baby.seals> wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
> >> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
> >
> >Agreed, for once.
>
> It has yet to be explained how though,
No, it has been explained countless times just how you are a dumbass.
There are literally dozens of ways in which you're a dumbass, ****wit.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:55:49 GMT, Goo wrote:
Goo agreed:
>WE KNOW
We KNOW "they" don't exist.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:25:55 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:kfrjo1pk1j8oshqq8h15a5b3mlf8d9j4hf@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need
>>>>>to
>>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume
>>>>>animal
>>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>>
>>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>>
>>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>>
>>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a
>>>negative
>>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>>>the ones who have a positive value.
>
>NO RESPONSE
We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.
>>>> Remember..?
>>>
>>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>>>about them".
>>
>> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly can
>> think of no reason why you should "think about them".
>
>****wit dictionary:
>Consider: v: Think about because you like
>eating meat.
Explain why it matters to the animals "how animals get to experience life".
>aka: The Logic of the Larder
You just can't answer it. I'll ask again: WHICH particular potential
wild animals do YOU/"ARAs" believe we should provide life for INSTEAD OF
livestock, and WHY? WHICH??? WHY????????
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On 29 Nov 2005 18:00:47 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>dh@. lied:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect <club@baby.seals> wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. lied:
>> >> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>> >
>> >Agreed, for once.
>>
>> It has yet to be explained how though,
>
>No, it has been explained countless times
Provide some example(s).
|
|
|
| S. Maizlich |
****wit David Harrison, 46-year-old homo who just moved
out of his mom's house, lied:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:55:49 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>
>>> I want to see them "again".
>>
>> Then you're going to have to spend some time in Google.
>> You don't get to waste my time except on my terms.
>>
>> You've seen them, and WE KNOW you've seen them.
>
>
> We KNOW "they" don't exist.
You know they DO exist, ****wit. Go find them.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:25:55 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> lied
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume
>>>>>>animal
>>>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>>>
>>>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a
>>>>negative
>>>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>>>>the ones who have a positive value.
>>
>>NO RESPONSE
>
>
> We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
> the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs"
Dutch doesn't want to eliminate livestock, ****wit.
You know it, too. Stop lying.
WHY do you think it's important that livestock in
particular exist, ****wit? Answer the question.
>>>>>Remember..?
>>>>
>>>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>>>>about them".
>>>
>>> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly can
>>>think of no reason why you should "think about them".
>>
>>****wit dictionary:
>>Consider: v: Think about because you like
>>eating meat.
>
>
> Explain why it matters to the animals "how animals get to experience life".
Explain why it matters to livestock animals that they
exist, ****wit.
>
>
>>aka: The Logic of the Larder
>
>
> You just can't answer it.
It isn't a sensible question.
Dutch's question to you is eminently reasonable: WHY
do you think it's important that livestock exist?
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
dh@. lied
> On 29 Nov 2005 18:00:47 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect <club@baby.seals> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>>>>
>>>>Agreed, for once.
>>>
>>> It has yet to be explained how though,
>>
>>No, it has been explained countless times
>
>
> Provide some example(s).
Go look them up yourself, ****wit.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:eshro195jj6vr26ve68b2284ms1n8a6h7m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:25:55 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:kfrjo1pk1j8oshqq8h15a5b3mlf8d9j4hf@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we
>>>>>>need
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume
>>>>>>animal
>>>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>>>
>>>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a
>>>>negative
>>>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking
>>>>about
>>>>the ones who have a positive value.
>>
>>NO RESPONSE
>
> We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
> the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.
Why do we need to think about animals who are well treated? How does
thinking about them help them? How does it help you? The answers are all
negative. It's completely meaningless to spend any time thinking about
animals who are well treated.
>>>>> Remember..?
>>>>
>>>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should
>>>>"think
>>>>about them".
>>>
>>> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly
>>> can
>>> think of no reason why you should "think about them".
>>
>>****wit dictionary:
>>Consider: v: Think about because you like
>>eating meat.
Why did you snip the middle of that quote?
****wit dictionary:
Consider: v: Think about how animals get to experience life because you like
eating meat.>
> Explain why it matters to the animals "how animals get to experience
> life".
It doesn't matter to the animals at all that you think about them "getting
to experience life". They don't know you do it, and it doesn't change their
lives. All it does is provide you with some relief for the sick guilt that
you don't even know you have.
>>aka: The Logic of the Larder
>
> You just can't answer it. I'll ask again: WHICH particular potential
> wild animals do YOU/"ARAs" believe we should provide life for INSTEAD OF
> livestock, and WHY? WHICH??? WHY????????
We should raise the animals we need and want, no more, no less. We should do
it because we want to and have the right to do so. We should treat whatever
animals we raise with decency. If we raise fewer, then fewer livestock will
exist to displace wildlife and leave more resources and space for whatever
wildlife are indigenous to those areas. Wildlife populations always swell to
meet the resources available to support them. That's the whole story in a
nutshell ****wit, all your talk about "life providing" is a crock of ****.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson <leif@norvege.no> wrote:
>dh@. lied
>
>> On 29 Nov 2005 18:00:47 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect <club@baby.seals> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed, for once.
>>>>
>>>> It has yet to be explained how though,
>>>
>>>No, it has been explained countless times
>>
>>
>> Provide some example(s).
>
>Go look them up yourself, ****wit.
They do not exist Goo, which of course is why you
can provide NO example(s).
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Goo wrote:
>>>Mr Harrison told the Gonad:
>>>>
>>>> I want to see them "again".
>>>
>>> Then you're going to have to spend some time in Google.
>>> You don't get to waste my time except on my terms.
>>>
>>> You've seen them, and WE KNOW you've seen them.
>>
>>
>> We KNOW "they" don't exist.
>
>You know they DO exist, ****wit. Go find them.
I found these quotes of YOURS which explain exactly how
YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to think about raising animals
for food:
"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing
ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration.
You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it
people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the
animals somehow mitigates the harm.
Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for
food, then having deliberately caused them to live in
the first place does not mitigate the wrong in any way
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's your answer
Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions.
You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself.
[That "other bizarre direction" is the idea of deliberately
providing decent AW for the animals we raise to eat]
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals
not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world."
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:44:40 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:eshro195jj6vr26ve68b2284ms1n8a6h7m@4ax.com...
>> We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
>> the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.
>
>Why do we need to think about animals who are well treated?
We should consider all of them, NOT ONLY the | | | |
