Discussion:
Proof just how nutty some animal rights activists are
(too old to reply)
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-26 23:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ‘Mumsy’, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
‘intimidation, violence and terror’.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
Roy
2010-10-27 00:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamksy
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ‘Mumsy’, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
‘intimidation, violence and terror’.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-...
==
Insane bitch...how would you like to have her for a nurse? They should
have put her away for 20 years.
==
Butteye Jest
2010-10-27 05:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ŒMumsy¹, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
Œintimidation, violence and terror¹.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror
-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
You're a smart guy there Chom. Got any idea what would motivate someone
to get involved with the fight for animal rights?
--
Ole Butteye
d***@.
2010-10-27 14:49:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:41:06 -0700, Butteye Jest
Post by Butteye Jest
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ŒMumsy¹, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
Œintimidation, violence and terror¹.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror
-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
You're a smart guy there Chom. Got any idea what would motivate someone
to get involved with the fight for animal rights?
Which rights for which animals? Since they want the
*elimination* of all domestic animals we can safely conclude that
there would be no rights for them, since none would exist. The
term "animal rights" is a gross mi$nomer in regards to domestic
animals.

So what about wildlife? Would what misnomer advocates wish to
impose provide rights for all wild animals, even though not for
domestic animals?

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
Dutch
2010-10-27 19:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:41:06 -0700, Butteye Jest
Post by Butteye Jest
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed OMumsy¹, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
Ointimidation, violence and terror¹.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror
-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
You're a smart guy there Chom. Got any idea what would motivate someone
to get involved with the fight for animal rights?
Which rights for which animals? Since they want the
*elimination* of all domestic animals we can safely conclude that
there would be no rights for them, since none would exist.
You're an idiot. Nobody cares about your little Catch-22 "insight". It's
horseshit.
Roy
2010-10-27 20:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:41:06 -0700, Butteye Jest
Post by Butteye Jest
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed OMumsy¹, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
Ointimidation, violence and terror¹.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-...
-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
You're a smart guy there Chom. Got any idea what would motivate someone
to get involved with the fight for animal rights?
   Which rights for which animals? Since they want the
*elimination* of all domestic animals we can safely conclude that
there would be no rights for them, since none would exist.
You're an idiot. Nobody cares about your little Catch-22 "insight". It's
horseshit.
==
Dutch, the constant nym shifter is at it again...how many different
names have you used today? Your whole persona is bullshit.
==
Dutch
2010-10-27 20:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:41:06 -0700, Butteye Jest
Post by Butteye Jest
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed OMumsy¹, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
Ointimidation, violence and terror¹.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-...
-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
You're a smart guy there Chom. Got any idea what would motivate someone
to get involved with the fight for animal rights?
Which rights for which animals? Since they want the
*elimination* of all domestic animals we can safely conclude that
there would be no rights for them, since none would exist.
You're an idiot. Nobody cares about your little Catch-22 "insight". It's
horseshit.
==
Dutch, the constant nym shifter is at it again...how many different
names have you used today? Your whole persona is bullshit.
==
Apart from a brief interlude about 10 years ago when I used the nym
"Apostate", I have used this same nym since about 1998. You have me mistaken
for someone else.
d***@.
2010-11-01 16:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Roy
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Which rights for which animals? Since they want the
*elimination* of all domestic animals we can safely conclude that
there would be no rights for them, since none would exist.
You're an idiot. Nobody cares about your little Catch-22 "insight". It's
horseshit.
==
Dutch, the constant nym shifter is at it again...how many different
names have you used today? Your whole persona is bullshit.
==
Apart from a brief interlude about 10 years ago when I used the nym
"Apostate", I have used this same nym since about 1998.
Amusingly you have claimed to change your position more than
you've admitted to referring to yourself in different ways:
_________________________________________________________
"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"

"Any suggestion that there is some moral significance to whether
or not they [future humans] will or will not exist is pure
nonsense." - "Dutch"

"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch

"It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives
(existence) of livestock, or of any other creature" - "Dutch"

"Thinking that the conditions that they will experience during
their lives is morally considerable is to advocate AW." - "Dutch"

"I don't believe humans are entitled to "consider" that animals
we use as food "get to experience life" " - "Dutch"

"if we raise animals and treat them well, that is good, morally."
- "Dutch"

"Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"

"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles.
It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"

"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very
existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You appear to think it's a thing of pride that you pretend to be
a traitor to veganism and the misnomer, and I know you're a
traitor to the concept of AW even if you're honestly unaware of
the fact yourself. I personally disbelieve you are unaware of
that fact, and in contrast you feel especially proud of trying to
present yourself as a traitor to AW since you now have and always
have had faith and trust in elimination. I disbelieve you
honestly think you ever got over it, but even IF! you do you're
wrong. So to sum it up:

IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
Dutch
2010-11-01 17:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
It's not possible that you are this stupid. AW is *contingent* on animals
existing. People who are against animals existing are NOT against AW, in
fact the reverse is true. Let me try to simplify this. There are several
possibilities.

Group A: This is most people.
Want livestock to exist AND don't care if they are well treated, don't
think about it

Group B: a growing number of people
Want livestock to exist AND hope they are well treated

Group C: This group is also growing
Want livestock to exist AND *demands* they be well treated, always choose
free range alternatives when they can afford them and when they are
available.

Group D: Most vegetarians
Do not want livestock to exist but want the ones who do to be well treated.

Group E: Extremist vegetarians, a tiny minority
Do not want livestock exist and would just as soon see them suffer so the
cruelty and injustice (in their eyes) of livestock rearing is exposed

Group F: The smallest group of all, a few hillbilly nitwits
Want livestock to exist, say they want them to be well treated, not because
they have real compassion but because they think the very lives of the
animals they consume provide an advantage in the argument with vegetarians.

Group A: ought to wake up, groups B:, C:, and D: are good people with whom I
have no argument, groups E: and F: are selfish deluded idiots who I dislike
intensely.

I fall somewhere between B: and C:, it's obvious where you are. (F:)
Eric®
2010-11-01 20:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
It's not possible that you are this stupid. AW is *contingent* on animals
existing. People who are against animals existing are NOT against AW, in
fact the reverse is true. Let me try to simplify this. There are several
possibilities.
Group A: This is most people.
Want livestock to exist AND don't care if they are well treated, don't
think about it
Group B: a growing number of people
Want livestock to exist AND hope they are well treated
Group C: This group is also growing
Want livestock to exist AND *demands* they be well treated, always choose
free range alternatives when they can afford them and when they are
available.
Group D: Most vegetarians
Do not want livestock to exist but want the ones who do to be well treated.
Group E: Extremist vegetarians, a tiny minority
Do not want livestock exist and would just as soon see them suffer so the
cruelty and injustice (in their eyes) of livestock rearing is exposed
Group F: The smallest group of all, a few hillbilly nitwits
Want livestock to exist, say they want them to be well treated, not because
they have real compassion but because they think the very lives of the
animals they consume provide an advantage in the argument with vegetarians.
Group A: ought to wake up, groups B:, C:, and D: are good people with whom I
have no argument, groups E: and F: are selfish deluded idiots who I dislike
intensely.
I fall somewhere between B: and C:, it's obvious where you are. (F:)
I think most people would fall into your 'B' category but don't think
about it, as it's easy to ignore the fact that the plastic-wrapped blob
of meat on a tray in a pleasant suburban supermarket was actually a
living, breathing animal at one point. I think most of your 'Group A'
should be included in 'B' as well.
Dutch
2010-11-01 20:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric®
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
It's not possible that you are this stupid. AW is *contingent* on animals
existing. People who are against animals existing are NOT against AW, in
fact the reverse is true. Let me try to simplify this. There are several
possibilities.
Group A: This is most people.
Want livestock to exist AND don't care if they are well treated, don't
think about it
Group B: a growing number of people
Want livestock to exist AND hope they are well treated
Group C: This group is also growing
Want livestock to exist AND *demands* they be well treated, always choose
free range alternatives when they can afford them and when they are
available.
Group D: Most vegetarians
Do not want livestock to exist but want the ones who do to be well treated.
Group E: Extremist vegetarians, a tiny minority
Do not want livestock exist and would just as soon see them suffer so the
cruelty and injustice (in their eyes) of livestock rearing is exposed
Group F: The smallest group of all, a few hillbilly nitwits
Want livestock to exist, say they want them to be well treated, not because
they have real compassion but because they think the very lives of the
animals they consume provide an advantage in the argument with vegetarians.
Group A: ought to wake up, groups B:, C:, and D: are good people with whom I
have no argument, groups E: and F: are selfish deluded idiots who I dislike
intensely.
I fall somewhere between B: and C:, it's obvious where you are. (F:)
I think most people would fall into your 'B' category but don't think
about it, as it's easy to ignore the fact that the plastic-wrapped blob
of meat on a tray in a pleasant suburban supermarket was actually a
living, breathing animal at one point. I think most of your 'Group A'
should be included in 'B' as well.
My real point is that A-D are generally speaking normal people, E and F, of
which our friend dh@ is one, are the knuckle-dragging mouth breathers I
wish to address.
Eric®
2010-11-01 21:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
Post by Eric®
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
It's not possible that you are this stupid. AW is *contingent* on animals
existing. People who are against animals existing are NOT against AW, in
fact the reverse is true. Let me try to simplify this. There are several
possibilities.
Group A: This is most people.
Want livestock to exist AND don't care if they are well treated, don't
think about it
Group B: a growing number of people
Want livestock to exist AND hope they are well treated
Group C: This group is also growing
Want livestock to exist AND *demands* they be well treated, always choose
free range alternatives when they can afford them and when they are
available.
Group D: Most vegetarians
Do not want livestock to exist but want the ones who do to be well treated.
Group E: Extremist vegetarians, a tiny minority
Do not want livestock exist and would just as soon see them suffer so the
cruelty and injustice (in their eyes) of livestock rearing is exposed
Group F: The smallest group of all, a few hillbilly nitwits
Want livestock to exist, say they want them to be well treated, not because
they have real compassion but because they think the very lives of the
animals they consume provide an advantage in the argument with vegetarians.
Group A: ought to wake up, groups B:, C:, and D: are good people with whom I
have no argument, groups E: and F: are selfish deluded idiots who I dislike
intensely.
I fall somewhere between B: and C:, it's obvious where you are. (F:)
I think most people would fall into your 'B' category but don't think
about it, as it's easy to ignore the fact that the plastic-wrapped blob
of meat on a tray in a pleasant suburban supermarket was actually a
living, breathing animal at one point. I think most of your 'Group A'
should be included in 'B' as well.
My real point is that A-D are generally speaking normal people, E and F, of
wish to address.
Gotcha. Maybe a bit of a strawman thing going on here ...

IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
d***@.
2010-11-02 22:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric®
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
Post by Eric®
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
It's not possible that you are this stupid. AW is *contingent* on animals
existing. People who are against animals existing are NOT against AW, in
fact the reverse is true. Let me try to simplify this. There are several
possibilities.
Group A: This is most people.
Want livestock to exist AND don't care if they are well treated, don't
think about it
Group B: a growing number of people
Want livestock to exist AND hope they are well treated
Group C: This group is also growing
Want livestock to exist AND *demands* they be well treated, always choose
free range alternatives when they can afford them and when they are
available.
Group D: Most vegetarians
Do not want livestock to exist but want the ones who do to be well treated.
Group E: Extremist vegetarians, a tiny minority
Do not want livestock exist and would just as soon see them suffer so the
cruelty and injustice (in their eyes) of livestock rearing is exposed
Group F: The smallest group of all, a few hillbilly nitwits
Want livestock to exist, say they want them to be well treated, not because
they have real compassion but because they think the very lives of the
animals they consume provide an advantage in the argument with vegetarians.
Group A: ought to wake up, groups B:, C:, and D: are good people with whom I
have no argument, groups E: and F: are selfish deluded idiots who I dislike
intensely.
I fall somewhere between B: and C:, it's obvious where you are. (F:)
I think most people would fall into your 'B' category but don't think
about it, as it's easy to ignore the fact that the plastic-wrapped blob
of meat on a tray in a pleasant suburban supermarket was actually a
living, breathing animal at one point. I think most of your 'Group A'
should be included in 'B' as well.
My real point is that A-D are generally speaking normal people, E and F, of
wish to address.
Gotcha.
IMO the "Dutch" character is unusually dishonest even for the
group he is actually in, which is group E. He lies and tries to
present himself as being in favor of decent AW, but his maniacal
opposition to having consideration for the animals themselves
clearly displays him as an eliminationist since only
eliminationists have reason to oppose consideration for the
animals lives. Certainly people in favor of decent AW have reason
to encourage consideration of the animals, not oppose
consideration as "Dutch" has been doing for a decade. Notice that
he refers to all people who have consideration for the animals'
lives as "hillbilly nitwits", and that is the only group he
insulted so blatantly and childishly. It's because that's the
group people in group E realise are the biggest threat to their
objective, so he targets that group with his most blatant
attempts at insult. Is group F any sort of threat to group A or B
as "Dutch" dishonestly claims to be part of? No, of course not.
So which groups are threatened by group F? Group E especially
which "Dutch's" behavior reveals him to be in in spite of his
dishonest claims to the contrary, and also group D which "Dutch"
is too maniacal to be in.
Post by Eric®
Maybe a bit of a strawman thing going on here ...
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
Dutch
2010-11-03 19:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
Post by Eric®
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
It's not possible that you are this stupid. AW is *contingent* on animals
existing. People who are against animals existing are NOT against AW, in
fact the reverse is true. Let me try to simplify this. There are several
possibilities.
Group A: This is most people.
Want livestock to exist AND don't care if they are well treated, don't
think about it
Group B: a growing number of people
Want livestock to exist AND hope they are well treated
Group C: This group is also growing
Want livestock to exist AND *demands* they be well treated, always choose
free range alternatives when they can afford them and when they are
available.
Group D: Most vegetarians
Do not want livestock to exist but want the ones who do to be well treated.
Group E: Extremist vegetarians, a tiny minority
Do not want livestock exist and would just as soon see them suffer so the
cruelty and injustice (in their eyes) of livestock rearing is exposed
Group F: The smallest group of all, a few hillbilly nitwits
Want livestock to exist, say they want them to be well treated, not because
they have real compassion but because they think the very lives of the
animals they consume provide an advantage in the argument with vegetarians.
Group A: ought to wake up, groups B:, C:, and D: are good people with whom I
have no argument, groups E: and F: are selfish deluded idiots who I dislike
intensely.
I fall somewhere between B: and C:, it's obvious where you are. (F:)
I think most people would fall into your 'B' category but don't think
about it, as it's easy to ignore the fact that the plastic-wrapped blob
of meat on a tray in a pleasant suburban supermarket was actually a
living, breathing animal at one point. I think most of your 'Group A'
should be included in 'B' as well.
My real point is that A-D are generally speaking normal people, E and F, of
wish to address.
Gotcha.
IMO the "Dutch" character is unusually dishonest even for the
group he is actually in, which is group E. He lies and tries to
present himself as being in favor of decent AW, but his maniacal
opposition to having consideration for the animals themselves
clearly displays him as an eliminationist since only
eliminationists have reason to oppose consideration for the
animals lives. Certainly people in favor of decent AW have reason
to encourage consideration of the animals, not oppose
consideration as "Dutch" has been doing for a decade. Notice that
he refers to all people who have consideration for the animals'
lives as "hillbilly nitwits", and that is the only group he
insulted so blatantly and childishly.
It's the only group who think like hillbilly nitwits.

It's because that's the
Post by d***@.
group people in group E realise are the biggest threat to their
objective, so he targets that group with his most blatant
attempts at insult. Is group F any sort of threat to group A or B
as "Dutch" dishonestly claims to be part of? No, of course not.
So which groups are threatened by group F? Group E especially
which "Dutch's" behavior reveals him to be in in spite of his
dishonest claims to the contrary, and also group D which "Dutch"
is too maniacal to be in.
What a flaming nitwit you are. Group F thinkers threaten the credibility of
groups B, C, and D who are decent, well meaning people who oppose AR.
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
Maybe a bit of a strawman thing going on here ...
Yes, very much so.
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
d***@.
2010-11-04 21:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
out of the definition:

Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.

So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
Dutch
2010-11-05 17:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.
So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
You have spent years constructing that little speech to the point where you
think it makes sense. It doesn't, it's fully of fallacies, equivocations,
false dichotomies and is topped off with a strawman. And I honestly believe
you can't see any of them. You are a fine example of what ignorance can do.
d***@.
2010-11-07 17:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.
So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
You have spent years constructing that little speech
I point out an obvious and significant aspect of the
situation that has existed for over ten thousand years and most
people are able to appreciate it. Since you not only are unable
to appreciate it but would rather try to somehow deny it, it
seems different to you necessarily in a weird way since you're
attempting to oppose reality.
Post by Dutch
to the point where you
think it makes sense.
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals.
Post by Dutch
It doesn't,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
Post by Dutch
it's fully of fallacies,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
Post by Dutch
equivocations,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
Post by Dutch
false dichotomies
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
Post by Dutch
and is topped off with a strawman.
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
Post by Dutch
And I honestly believe
you can't see any of them.
LOL!
Post by Dutch
You are a fine example of what ignorance can do.
We all are ignorant of some things. Try explaining a couple
of them now. Try explaining:

1. how exactly you want people to try to persuade themselves to
believe that refusing to have consideration for the lives of
livestock is better than having consideration for them.

2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.

You people very badly want everyone to believe you about those
things, but none of you have ever given a respectable reason for
anyone to even consider what you want them to think is superior
about your way of "thinking". Try explaining it NOW!
Dutch
2010-11-07 18:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.
So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
You have spent years constructing that little speech
I point out an obvious and significant aspect
It's not significant, it's irrelevant.

of the
Post by d***@.
situation that has existed for over ten thousand years and most
people are able to appreciate it. Since you not only are unable
to appreciate it but would rather try to somehow deny it, it
seems different to you necessarily in a weird way since you're
attempting to oppose reality.
Post by Dutch
to the point where you
think it makes sense.
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals.
An irrelevant aspect.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
It doesn't,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
An irrelevant aspect.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
it's fully of fallacies,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
Your speech is full of fallacies.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
equivocations,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
An irrelevant aspect.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
false dichotomies
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
An irrelevant aspect.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and is topped off with a strawman.
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
An irrelevant aspect.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
And I honestly believe
you can't see any of them.
LOL!
Can you? Or do you just giggle for effect?
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
You are a fine example of what ignorance can do.
We all are ignorant of some things. Try explaining a couple
1. how exactly you want people to try to persuade themselves to
believe that refusing to have consideration for the lives of
livestock is better than having consideration for them.
An irrelevant aspect.
Post by d***@.
2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.
An irrelevant aspect.
Post by d***@.
You people very badly want everyone to believe you about those
things, but none of you have ever given a respectable reason for
anyone to even consider what you want them to think is superior
about your way of "thinking". Try explaining it NOW!
My way of thinking, which represents the way of thinking of the vast
majority of sensible people, is not based on fallacies, equivocations,
strawmen or false dichotomies like your way of thinking is.

Any other questions?
d***@.
2010-11-08 15:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.
So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
You have spent years constructing that little speech
I point out an obvious and significant aspect
It's not significant, it's irrelevant.
Those are two lies, so we'll call them 1 and 2.
Post by Dutch
of the
Post by d***@.
situation that has existed for over ten thousand years and most
people are able to appreciate it. Since you not only are unable
to appreciate it but would rather try to somehow deny it, it
seems different to you necessarily in a weird way since you're
attempting to oppose reality.
Post by Dutch
to the point where you
think it makes sense.
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals.
An irrelevant aspect.
Lie 2 again.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
It doesn't,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
An irrelevant aspect.
Lie 2 again.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
it's fully of fallacies,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
Your speech is full of fallacies.
We'll call that lie 3.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
equivocations,
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
An irrelevant aspect.
Lie 2 again.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
false dichotomies
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
An irrelevant aspect.
Lie 2 again.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and is topped off with a strawman.
It's an existing aspect of human influence on animals whether
that aspect "makes sense" to you or not.
An irrelevant aspect.
Lie 2 again.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
And I honestly believe
you can't see any of them.
LOL!
Can you? Or do you just giggle for effect?
The things you claim to believe are sometimes strikingly
funny. Just the fact that you would even make a claim is
sometimes hilarious, for differing reasons. This time it's
amusing that you would say you honestly believe I can't see
something that doesn't exist or even appear to. One of the main
aspects of humor is the surprise element and you often surprise
me by saying something that's surprisingly stupid, often because
it's so obviously dishonest. In this case you're trying to be
critical of me for not seeing something that isn't there which is
amusing, especially from you who can't appreciate something that
is there and has been for thousands of years.

You can't see stereograms either, can you? You're probably
one of those who believes there's nothing in them...that people
are somehow making it up. I know one girl who is a rather shallow
person but she does well at the work she does and probably got
good grades in school, which would make her appear to be
intelligent. She can't see stereograms though, and amazingly
claims to believe there is nothing in them. She even has gone so
far, more than once, to claim that people who can't see them are
more intelligent than people who can. It's pathetic, but that way
of "thinking" is how I see you people too. She is above you
though in that she can appreciate lives of positive value for
livestock, and I'm sure she can distinguish between some which
are and some which are not... Back to the stereograms: In
contrast to her I knew a guy who has eye problems and one eye is
way off from the other, so he can't get the images to come
together and match up right. The poor guy would sit there for
half an hour, time after time, because he knew something was
there and he wanted to see it too. I still feel bad for the guy,
and tried every way I could think of to help him see them but I
believe he was just physically unable to because of the defect(s)
in his eye(s). But that guy tried and tried in complete contrast
to the "overly intelligent" girl who couldn't even make an
attempt. .

You can't see them can you?
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
You are a fine example of what ignorance can do.
We all are ignorant of some things. Try explaining a couple
1. how exactly you want people to try to persuade themselves to
believe that refusing to have consideration for the lives of
livestock is better than having consideration for them.
An irrelevant aspect.
Lie 2 again.

Why have you been opposing the suggestion that people have
consideration for the lives of livestock for ten years when you
now claim to think it would be irrelevant if they do?
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.
An irrelevant aspect.
Lie 2 again.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
You people very badly want everyone to believe you about those
things, but none of you have ever given a respectable reason for
anyone to even consider what you want them to think is superior
about your way of "thinking". Try explaining it NOW!
My way of thinking, which represents the way of thinking of the vast
majority of sensible people, is not
So far that does appear to be the case. I've been telling you
people the entire time that you have nothing but lies. I remember
one of the first things I read that someone wrote about you
people back when these groups were active, was someone quoting
another anti about them. That person said something suggesting
that all of your supposed arguments are based on outright lies or
half truths. It seemed true back then when there were dozens of
you, and it remains true today with you being the only one left.
Post by Dutch
based on fallacies, equivocations,
strawmen or false dichotomies like your way of thinking is.
What I point out is a fact. You hate the fact because it
works against your objective but you can't refute a fact, so you
try to insult it. LOL...from my pov it's still rather amusing to
see you hurl insults like that at a fact. You might just as well
be insulting gravity.
Post by Dutch
Any other questions?
Not at the moment, so I'll challenge you again to try
answering the ones I challenged you to answer the last time.
Without wussing around again, this time try explaining:

1. how exactly you want people to try to persuade themselves to
believe that refusing to have consideration for the lives of
livestock is better than having consideration for them.

2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.
Dutch
2010-11-08 19:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
1. how exactly you want people to try to persuade themselves to
believe that refusing to have consideration for the lives of
livestock is better than having consideration for them.
The "consideration" in your question is self-serving and fake. It is not
designed to nor does it help animals in any way, and the proof of that is
that despite being challenged hundreds of times you have never given a
single example of a benefit that it created for any animal.
Post by d***@.
2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.
That's another false and misleading question, and a blatant strawman. I
don't believe in the elimination of livestock and I don't believe that that
the elimination of livestock would be better than the *real* alternative,
which is to continue breeding them.

Once we agree that it is *acceptable*, never a moral victory due to them
"getting to experience life" as the LoL promotes, THEN we can discuss what
AW measures are necessary and sufficient to make it a moral practice.
d***@.
2010-11-10 20:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I knew a guy who has eye problems and one eye is
way off from the other, so he can't get the images to come
together and match up right. The poor guy would sit there for
half an hour, time after time, because he knew something was
there and he wanted to see it too. I still feel bad for the guy,
and tried every way I could think of to help him see them but I
believe he was just physically unable to because of the defect(s)
in his eye(s). But that guy tried and tried in complete contrast
to the "overly intelligent" girl who couldn't even make an
attempt. .
You can't see them can you?
You can't, can you? Do you believe there's anything to them,
or do you believe it's a hoax or something?
. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
That person said something suggesting
that all of your supposed arguments are based on outright lies or
half truths. It seemed true back then when there were dozens of
you, and it remains true today with you being the only one left.
Post by Dutch
based on fallacies, equivocations,
strawmen or false dichotomies like your way of thinking is.
What I point out is a fact. You hate the fact because it
works against your objective but you can't refute a fact, so you
try to insult it. LOL...from my pov it's still rather amusing to
see you hurl insults like that at a fact. You might just as well
be insulting gravity.
Post by Dutch
Any other questions?
Not at the moment, so I'll challenge you again to try
answering the ones I challenged you to answer the last time.
1. how exactly you want people to try to persuade themselves to
believe that refusing to have consideration for the lives of
livestock is better than having consideration for them.
The "consideration" in your question is self-serving and fake. It is not
designed to nor does it help animals in any way,
That didn't even begin to attempt the challenge you inept
fool, but as usual/always I'll give you another attempt. This
time try explaining how exactly you want people to try to
persuade themselves to believe that refusing to have
consideration for the lives of livestock is better than having
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.
That's another false and misleading question, and a blatant strawman. I
don't believe in the elimination of livestock and I don't believe that that
the elimination of livestock would be better than the *real* alternative,
which is to continue breeding them.
Once we agree that it is *acceptable*, never a moral victory due to them
"getting to experience life" as the LoL promotes, THEN we can discuss what
AW measures are necessary and sufficient to make it a moral practice.
According to you nothing could, otherwise you would be able
to appreciate situations where it's already the case. But you
can't, meaning that it's not like you would ever be able to under
any conditions since you can't appreciate any of the conditions
in which it's already taking place. That of course always has
been and always will remain more very strong evidence that you're
in favor of the misnomer.
Dutch
2010-11-12 04:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I knew a guy who has eye problems and one eye is
way off from the other, so he can't get the images to come
together and match up right. The poor guy would sit there for
half an hour, time after time, because he knew something was
there and he wanted to see it too. I still feel bad for the guy,
and tried every way I could think of to help him see them but I
believe he was just physically unable to because of the defect(s)
in his eye(s). But that guy tried and tried in complete contrast
to the "overly intelligent" girl who couldn't even make an
attempt. .
You can't see them can you?
You can't, can you? Do you believe there's anything to them,
or do you believe it's a hoax or something?
. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
That person said something suggesting
that all of your supposed arguments are based on outright lies or
half truths. It seemed true back then when there were dozens of
you, and it remains true today with you being the only one left.
Post by Dutch
based on fallacies, equivocations,
strawmen or false dichotomies like your way of thinking is.
What I point out is a fact. You hate the fact because it
works against your objective but you can't refute a fact, so you
try to insult it. LOL...from my pov it's still rather amusing to
see you hurl insults like that at a fact. You might just as well
be insulting gravity.
Post by Dutch
Any other questions?
Not at the moment, so I'll challenge you again to try
answering the ones I challenged you to answer the last time.
1. how exactly you want people to try to persuade themselves to
believe that refusing to have consideration for the lives of
livestock is better than having consideration for them.
The "consideration" in your question is self-serving and fake. It is not
designed to nor does it help animals in any way,
That didn't even begin to attempt the challenge you inept
fool, but as usual/always I'll give you another attempt. This
time try explaining how exactly you want people to try to
persuade themselves to believe that refusing to have
consideration for the lives of livestock is better than having
It did answer it, the "consideration" you advocate is unworthy and slimy. I
tend to oppose unworthy and slimy ways of thinking.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.
That's another false and misleading question, and a blatant strawman. I
don't believe in the elimination of livestock and I don't believe that that
the elimination of livestock would be better than the *real* alternative,
which is to continue breeding them.
Once we agree that it is *acceptable*, never a moral victory due to them
"getting to experience life" as the LoL promotes, THEN we can discuss what
AW measures are necessary and sufficient to make it a moral practice.
According to you nothing could,
A blatant lie. I have stated repeatedly that providing decent conditions for
animals makes raising livestock a moral and acceptable practice.

You ignore clear and unequivocal statements of my beliefs and attribute
motives to me that you find convenient.

How is it possible to have an honest debate when you do that?
Post by d***@.
otherwise you would be able
to appreciate situations where it's already the case. But you
can't, meaning that it's not like you would ever be able to under
any conditions since you can't appreciate any of the conditions
in which it's already taking place. That of course always has
been and always will remain more very strong evidence that you're
in favor of the misnomer.
Strawman
d***@.
2010-11-16 20:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I knew a guy who has eye problems and one eye is
way off from the other, so he can't get the images to come
together and match up right. The poor guy would sit there for
half an hour, time after time, because he knew something was
there and he wanted to see it too. I still feel bad for the guy,
and tried every way I could think of to help him see them but I
believe he was just physically unable to because of the defect(s)
in his eye(s). But that guy tried and tried in complete contrast
to the "overly intelligent" girl who couldn't even make an
attempt. .
You can't see them can you?
You can't, can you? Do you believe there's anything to them,
or do you believe it's a hoax or something?
. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
That person said something suggesting
that all of your supposed arguments are based on outright lies or
half truths. It seemed true back then when there were dozens of
you, and it remains true today with you being the only one left.
Post by Dutch
based on fallacies, equivocations,
strawmen or false dichotomies like your way of thinking is.
What I point out is a fact. You hate the fact because it
works against your objective but you can't refute a fact, so you
try to insult it. LOL...from my pov it's still rather amusing to
see you hurl insults like that at a fact. You might just as well
be insulting gravity.
Post by Dutch
Any other questions?
Not at the moment, so I'll challenge you again to try
answering the ones I challenged you to answer the last time.
1. how exactly you want people to try to persuade themselves to
believe that refusing to have consideration for the lives of
livestock is better than having consideration for them.
The "consideration" in your question is self-serving and fake. It is not
designed to nor does it help animals in any way,
That didn't even begin to attempt the challenge you inept
fool, but as usual/always I'll give you another attempt. This
time try explaining how exactly you want people to try to
persuade themselves to believe that refusing to have
consideration for the lives of livestock is better than having
It did answer it,
No it didn't. You lied, and now you're lying that your lie
did something it can't do. Try again.
Post by Dutch
the "consideration" you advocate is unworthy and slimy.
You only feel that way because it works against elimination.
Post by Dutch
I tend to oppose unworthy and slimy ways of thinking.
You lie, and now you're lying about being opposed to the sort
of things that make up your whole way of thinking like all of
your lying.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.
That's another false and misleading question, and a blatant strawman. I
don't believe in the elimination of livestock and I don't believe that that
the elimination of livestock would be better than the *real* alternative,
which is to continue breeding them.
Once we agree that it is *acceptable*, never a moral victory due to them
"getting to experience life" as the LoL promotes, THEN we can discuss what
AW measures are necessary and sufficient to make it a moral practice.
According to you nothing could,
A blatant lie. I have stated repeatedly that providing decent conditions for
animals makes raising livestock a moral and acceptable practice.
Yet you oppose considering the very lives which NECESSARILY
MUST be taken into consideration in order to determin when it is
and when it's not. It becomes more complicated than that, but
let's don't forget that you have devoted a decade to insisting
that we never even get that far. YOU have, and I've been trying
to get you to move on. You, and Rupert, and Goo, and Pearl, and
Derek, and Mr Smartypants, and all the rest of you.
Post by Dutch
You ignore clear and unequivocal statements of my beliefs and attribute
motives to me that you find convenient.
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose consideration of
the lives of livestock animals, as I've been pointing out.
Post by Dutch
How is it possible to have an honest debate when you do that?
You would need to become honest to begin with. First with
yourself IF!!! you really believe you've gotten over your
addiction to the misnomer, to acknowledge to yourself that in
fact you have not. Then be honest with me about it and we can
move on from there...either to help you actually get over it as
you appear to want to (sometimes), or attempt to defend your
faith in the misnomer honestly and openly instead of sneaking
around doing it the cowardly way you've been attempting. So now
you have great freedom in how to proceed in a new and honest way
which I would think would be very refreshing for you after all
these years of dishonesty. Just acknowledge that you really still
have deep rooted faith in the misnomer, and then we can move on
from there honestly and maybe make some sort of positive
progress.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
otherwise you would be able
to appreciate situations where it's already the case. But you
can't, meaning that it's not like you would ever be able to under
any conditions since you can't appreciate any of the conditions
in which it's already taking place. That of course always has
been and always will remain more very strong evidence that you're
in favor of the misnomer.
Strawman
No, that part is very significant too. You act as you like to
think you "could" appreciate some livestock animals' lives under
certain conditions if they appeared to be of positive value. But
millions already do while you can't appreciate a single one of
them, which means you're not capable even though you act like
you'd like to believe you are. It IS very significant. You would
have a fairly difficult time trying to become what you want
people to think you are, but I still believe you probably could
do it if you ever actually try.
Dutch
2010-11-17 06:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
time try explaining how exactly you want people to try to
persuade themselves to believe that refusing to have
consideration for the lives of livestock is better than having
It did answer it,
No it didn't. You lied, and now you're lying that your lie
did something it can't do. Try again.
I've answered that question a hundred times.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
the "consideration" you advocate is unworthy and slimy.
You only feel that way because it works against elimination.
No, because I don't support "elimination".
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I tend to oppose unworthy and slimy ways of thinking.
You lie, and now you're lying about being opposed to the sort
of things that make up your whole way of thinking like all of
your lying.
I'm not lying, I oppose your way of thinking because it's slimy and
self-serving.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
2. how you want people to believe that the elimination of all
livestock is better than providing billions of future livestock
animals with lives of positive value.
That's another false and misleading question, and a blatant strawman. I
don't believe in the elimination of livestock and I don't believe that that
the elimination of livestock would be better than the *real*
alternative,
which is to continue breeding them.
Once we agree that it is *acceptable*, never a moral victory due to them
"getting to experience life" as the LoL promotes, THEN we can discuss what
AW measures are necessary and sufficient to make it a moral practice.
According to you nothing could,
A blatant lie. I have stated repeatedly that providing decent conditions for
animals makes raising livestock a moral and acceptable practice.
Yet you oppose considering the very lives
That has no meaning to animals, helps no animal, and does nothing for
humans.

It's BULLSHIT.

which NECESSARILY
Post by d***@.
MUST be taken into consideration in order to determin when it is
and when it's not. It becomes more complicated than that, but
let's don't forget that you have devoted a decade to insisting
that we never even get that far. YOU have, and I've been trying
to get you to move on. You, and Rupert, and Goo, and Pearl, and
Derek, and Mr Smartypants, and all the rest of you.
Post by Dutch
You ignore clear and unequivocal statements of my beliefs and attribute
motives to me that you find convenient.
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose consideration of
the lives of livestock animals, as I've been pointing out.
That's false, since the "consideration" you advocate is actually smug, empty
self-congratulation that has never helped a single animal. That gives
everyone a reason to oppose it.

I support REAL consideration for animals, meaning giving attention to the
quality of their lives.

<snip same stale bullshit>
d***@.
2010-11-18 18:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose consideration of
the lives of livestock animals, as I've been pointing out.
That's false,
No one else does. Certainly no one who is actually in favor
of decent AW over elimination does.
Post by Dutch
since the "consideration" you advocate is actually smug, empty
self-congratulation
It's just an aspect of the situation, but it's an aspect that
you people hate because it works against elimination.
Post by Dutch
that has never helped a single animal. That gives
everyone a reason to oppose it.
LOL! ONLY if you can explain how you want people to think
your suggested smug, empty self-congratulatory refusal to
consider the lives of the animals we're discussing is somehow
superior to considering them.
Post by Dutch
I support REAL consideration for animals, meaning giving attention to the
quality of their lives.
When we do that what do you want people to conclude about
those which have lives of positive value? What do you want people
to conclude about those which have lives of negative value?
Dutch
2010-11-18 19:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose consideration of
the lives of livestock animals, as I've been pointing out.
That's false,
No one else does.
Most of your opponents oppose "elimination" including myself and Ball.
Post by d***@.
Certainly no one who is actually in favor
of decent AW over elimination does.
That's a false dichotomy.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
since the "consideration" you advocate is actually smug, empty
self-congratulation
It's just an aspect of the situation, but it's an aspect that
you people hate because it works against elimination.
Your smug, fake "consideration" is NOT an aspect of anything except your
dubious character.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
that has never helped a single animal. That gives
everyone a reason to oppose it.
LOL!
As he giggles nervously when he hears the truth..

NOT A SINGLE ANIMAL has ever been helped by this "consideration" that you
dishonestly portray as benefitting animals...
Post by d***@.
ONLY if you can explain how you want people to think
your suggested smug, empty self-congratulatory refusal to
consider the lives of the animals we're discussing is somehow
superior to considering them.
Refusing to engage in smug self-congratulatory sophism is an act of
intellectual and moral honesty.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I support REAL consideration for animals, meaning giving attention to the
quality of their lives.
When we do that what do you want people to conclude about
those which have lives of positive value?
People can conclude that humans have met their moral obligation to these
animals.

What do you want people
Post by d***@.
to conclude about those which have lives of negative value?
People can conclude that humans have failed to meet their moral obligation
to these animals.
T. Howard Pines, jr.
2010-11-13 07:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
   What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
   Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.
So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
You have spent years constructing that little speech
    I point out an obvious and significant aspect of
You have pointed out nothing.
d***@.
2010-11-16 20:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, jr.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.
So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
You have spent years constructing that little speech
I point out an obvious and significant aspect of the
situation that has existed for over ten thousand years and most
people are able to appreciate it. Since you not only are unable
to appreciate it but would rather try to somehow deny it, it
seems different to you necessarily in a weird way since you're
attempting to oppose reality.
You have pointed out nothing.
I pointed out what I pointed out Goob, and then pointed out
what I had pointed out. Now I'm pointing all of that out to you,
Goo.
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2010-11-17 05:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by T. Howard Pines, jr.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.
So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
You have spent years constructing that little speech
I point out an obvious and significant aspect of the
situation that has existed for over ten thousand years and most
people are able to appreciate it. Since you not only are unable
to appreciate it but would rather try to somehow deny it, it
seems different to you necessarily in a weird way since you're
attempting to oppose reality.
You have pointed out nothing.
I pointed out
You pointed out nothing.
d***@.
2010-11-18 18:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, Jr.
Post by d***@.
Post by T. Howard Pines, jr.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Eric®
IMO your groups A,B, and D are pretty much livestock themselves.
What do you want people to believe is wrong with the idea
behind group B? How do you attempt to lump them together with
group D?
B, C, and D are decent, sensible people. Group A needs a wakeup call, Group
E needs a smack upside the head, Group F needs a brain transplant.
Well first we need to tweak your misnomer loving hysterics
Group F: Believe that providing decent lives for livestock is
ethically equivalent or superior to: preventing any livestock
from existing, regardless of and with no consideration for what
the quality of their lives would be if they did exist.
So you believe that people who think decent lives are as good or
better than no life, need "a brain transplant". This again
displays you as a misnomer addict who has faith that elimination
is the most ethical possible choice. You show that repeatedly.
You have spent years constructing that little speech
I point out an obvious and significant aspect of the
situation that has existed for over ten thousand years and most
people are able to appreciate it. Since you not only are unable
to appreciate it but would rather try to somehow deny it, it
seems different to you necessarily in a weird way since you're
attempting to oppose reality.
You have pointed out nothing.
I pointed out what I pointed out Goob, and then pointed out
what I had pointed out. Now I'm pointing all of that out to you,
Goo.
You pointed out nothing.
I pointed out what I pointed out Goob, and then pointed out
what I had pointed out. Later I pointed out all of that out, and
now I'm pointing it all out again Goo.
d***@.
2010-11-02 22:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
It's not possible that you are this stupid. AW is *contingent* on animals
existing. People who are against animals existing are NOT against AW, in
fact the reverse is true. Let me try to simplify this. There are several
possibilities.
Group A: This is most people.
Want livestock to exist AND don't care if they are well treated, don't
think about it
Group B: a growing number of people
Want livestock to exist AND hope they are well treated
Group C: This group is also growing
Want livestock to exist AND *demands* they be well treated, always choose
free range alternatives when they can afford them and when they are
available.
Group D: Most vegetarians
Do not want livestock to exist but want the ones who do to be well treated.
Group E: Extremist vegetarians, a tiny minority
Do not want livestock exist and would just as soon see them suffer so the
cruelty and injustice (in their eyes) of livestock rearing is exposed
Group F: The smallest group of all, a few hillbilly nitwits
Want livestock to exist, say they want them to be well treated, not because
they have real compassion but because they think the very lives of the
animals they consume provide an advantage in the argument with vegetarians.
Group A: ought to wake up, groups B:, C:, and D: are good people with whom I
have no argument, groups E: and F: are selfish deluded idiots who I dislike
intensely.
I fall somewhere between B: and C:,
That is the lie you want people to believe because people who
actually fall into that catagory are your targets. Those are the
people who you want to persuade to become veg*ns instead of
conscientious consumers of animal products. You try to sway them
by dishonestly "reassuring" them that the lives of the animals
raised for food should be given no consideration. ONLY people
trying to encourage veganism and elimination have reason to
oppose consideration for the lives of livestock.
Post by Dutch
it's obvious where you are. (F:)
I obviously believe the lives of animals raised for food
should be given as much or more consideration than their deaths,
regardless of how you people try to insult that way of thinking.
Dutch
2010-11-03 19:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
IF! you honestly believe you're in support of decent AW, you are
in reality actually a traitor. But if on the more likely side
you're fully aware that you're working against AW, then you're
nothing but a liar.
It's not possible that you are this stupid. AW is *contingent* on animals
existing. People who are against animals existing are NOT against AW, in
fact the reverse is true. Let me try to simplify this. There are several
possibilities.
Group A: This is most people.
Want livestock to exist AND don't care if they are well treated, don't
think about it
Group B: a growing number of people
Want livestock to exist AND hope they are well treated
Group C: This group is also growing
Want livestock to exist AND *demands* they be well treated, always choose
free range alternatives when they can afford them and when they are
available.
Group D: Most vegetarians
Do not want livestock to exist but want the ones who do to be well treated.
Group E: Extremist vegetarians, a tiny minority
Do not want livestock exist and would just as soon see them suffer so the
cruelty and injustice (in their eyes) of livestock rearing is exposed
Group F: The smallest group of all, a few hillbilly nitwits
Want livestock to exist, say they want them to be well treated, not because
they have real compassion but because they think the very lives of the
animals they consume provide an advantage in the argument with
vegetarians.
Group A: ought to wake up, groups B:, C:, and D: are good people with whom I
have no argument, groups E: and F: are selfish deluded idiots who I dislike
intensely.
I fall somewhere between B: and C:,
That is the lie
Its not a lie.

you want people to believe because people who
Post by d***@.
actually fall into that catagory are your targets. Those are the
people who you want to persuade to become veg*ns instead of
conscientious consumers of animal products.
How could I convince people to become vegans by saying that I support
raising livestock and think it to be a good and honorable pursuit?

Please explain how that works.
Post by d***@.
You try to sway them
by dishonestly "reassuring" them that the lives of the animals
raised for food should be given no consideration.
That's right, they shouldn't. The conditions under which the animals live is
what warrants consideration. The "consideration" you're advocating is
rhetorical self congratulation.
Post by d***@.
ONLY people
trying to encourage veganism and elimination have reason to
oppose consideration for the lives of livestock.
When are you going to learn what an equivocation is and realize that is what
you are doing there?

The "consideration" you brag about there is empty lip service, not some
service to animals.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
it's obvious where you are. (F:)
I obviously believe the lives of animals raised for food
should be given as much or more consideration than their deaths,
regardless of how you people try to insult that way of thinking.
And you obviously believe that makes sense. It doesn't, it makes you a
bigger idiot than the ARA you think you're attacking.
d***@.
2010-11-04 21:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I fall somewhere between B: and C:,
That is the lie
Its not a lie.
IF!!! you think you really are in favor of AW, you are
without doubt as pathetic a "supporter" of the idea as there has
ever been. Of course if you really are in favor of the misnomer
as I believe you are you do as well at trying to support it as
any of them that I've seen, though every one of you suck badly at
it. But you suck much much much more badly at supporting AW...so
badly in fact that you oppose it. LOL...do you really want me to
believe that you're actually in favor of AW but you suck so badly
at "supporting" it that you're actually arguing in support of the
misnomer? That would make you really really stupid, which as
usual/always with you brings us to the decade old question of
whether you're more stupid than you are dishonest, or more
dishonest than you are stupid...
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
you want people to believe because people who
actually fall into that catagory are your targets. Those are the
people who you want to persuade to become veg*ns instead of
conscientious consumers of animal products.
How could I convince people to become vegans
You TRY to do by assuring them that the lives of livestock
should be given no consideration when they are good but only when
they are bad, and then by insisting that they are almost always
bad. You TRY to do it by insisting also that the lives of
livestock should be given no consideration at all. You TRY to do
it also by insisting that the deaths of livestock should be given
consideration but that their lives should be given none. You TRY
to do it also by suggesting that the lives of livestock are of no
ethical value, but that the lives of wildlife are. You TRY to do
it also by ridiculing having consideration for the animals' lives
as you people have been doing for decades and by speaking well of
your hero Henry Salt's absurd and unrealistic talking pig
fantasy. Those are some of the ways that you TRY.
Post by Dutch
by saying that I support raising livestock
You lie to people saying that's what you believe in an
attempt to win the trust of people who honestly do feel that way,
and then you go on to support the misnomer by working against
consideration for the very animals we're discussing.
Post by Dutch
and think it to be a good and honorable pursuit?
Explain what you want people to think you think is honorable
Post by Dutch
Please explain how that works.
What you try to do is persuade people who are in favor of AW
that you are also in favor of it so they feel you're on their
side and they can trust you, and then you go on to insist that
the lives of the very animals they are being considerate of
should not be taken into consideration. I don't believe you have
ever been successful at that. Of course all your brother
eliminationists agree with you, but that doesn't count for
anything at all to those of us who don't respect you people.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
You try to sway them
by dishonestly "reassuring" them that the lives of the animals
raised for food should be given no consideration.
That's right, they shouldn't.
ONLY by people who are in favor of elimination, and they
SHOULD even by them. Duh.
Post by Dutch
The conditions under which the animals live is
what warrants consideration.
That's certainly a great part of it as your hero pointed out
and you objected to him pointing out.
Post by Dutch
The "consideration" you're advocating is
rhetorical self congratulation.
It's recognising an aspect of the situation that you people
don't want to see recognised BECAUSE it works against the
elimination objective.
. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I obviously believe the lives of animals raised for food
should be given as much or more consideration than their deaths,
regardless of how you people try to insult that way of thinking.
And you obviously believe that makes sense. It doesn't,
The ONLY people it should not make sense to are people who are
in favor of elimination. For example I might not apply it very
much to battery hens since I would like to see that method of
farming eliminated, but I would certainly apply it to cage free
hens. The only people who should not apply it to anything are
people who are opposed to raising any livestock at all, which of
course as usual/always again displays you as an eliminationist.
In fact you are such a pure and obvious eliminationist that you
say it makes no sense in regards to all livestock, regardless of
the quality of their lives, and without being able to make any
distinction between when that type of thinking works ethically in
support of a particular type of farming, and when it works
against it. To you eliminationists it's all the same regardless
of quality of life, where to people who really have some interest
in AW it varies from one example to another. This is yet another
way that you display yourself as an eliminationist.
Post by Dutch
it makes you a
bigger idiot than the ARA you think you're attacking.
You would ONLY believe that if you had faith in the misnomer,
which you do, which is why you believe it, which again displays
you as the eliminationist that you are.
Dutch
2010-11-05 17:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
it makes you a
bigger idiot than the ARA you think you're attacking.
You would ONLY believe that if you had faith in the misnomer,
which you do, which is why you believe it, which again displays
you as the eliminationist that you are.
So can I assume that you plan to take this bullshit to the grave with you?
d***@.
2010-11-07 17:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
it makes you a
bigger idiot than the ARA you think you're attacking.
You would ONLY believe that if you had faith in the misnomer,
which you do, which is why you believe it, which again displays
you as the eliminationist that you are.
So can I assume that you plan to take this bullshit to the grave with you?
I learned to appreciate the lives of livestock, and doubt
that I'll ever unlearn it. At one time you pretended that you had
learned that too:

"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"

It was a lie when you pretended it apparently, but I did learn it
and people don't unlearn things like that unless they have some
sort of brain injury. You'll probably never be able to
comprehend, but it would be like unlearning to speak English, or
unlearning how to appreciate music you like, or something like
that. So I've known something for decades that you people will
just never learn. Little children learn it, but people like you
never will. The reality of the situation is that YOU PEOPLE who
are mentally incapable of consideration for the lives of
livestock are in the group of most unrealistic and ingnorant
people on Earth in regards to human influence on animals. I
honestly believe that a person must have a mental defect in order
to believe as you people do, and you in particular more than the
majority of them. You may truly not be aware that you still have
faith in the misnomer, but your inability to appreciate the lives
of the animals we're discussing puts you in that catagory even if
you honestly wish that you had risen above it. You haven't, and
sadly you probably never will. It's up to you IF you are mentally
capable of doing it at all, which you very well may not be.
Dutch
2010-11-07 18:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
it makes you a
bigger idiot than the ARA you think you're attacking.
You would ONLY believe that if you had faith in the misnomer,
which you do, which is why you believe it, which again displays
you as the eliminationist that you are.
So can I assume that you plan to take this bullshit to the grave with you?
I learned to appreciate the lives of livestock,
You learned a semantic trick, a way to congratulation yourself for consuming
animal products by pretending to "consider" the animals.

It's self-serving, circular sophism, that is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY,
obvious to anyone with even moderate intelligence, which excludes you. It's
a dishonest and disgraceful argument.
Post by d***@.
and doubt
that I'll ever unlearn it. At one time you pretended that you had
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
I was completely and totally wrong when I said that. We don't "give them
life", we have no such capability. It's not "beneficial" to them either
because if we didn't do it they would never exist in the first place to be
worse off. It's also not a contract because a contract requires that both
parties enter into it willingly.

That was and remains to this day the stupidest thing I have ever said.

<snip gibberish>
d***@.
2010-11-08 15:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
it makes you a
bigger idiot than the ARA you think you're attacking.
You would ONLY believe that if you had faith in the misnomer,
which you do, which is why you believe it, which again displays
you as the eliminationist that you are.
So can I assume that you plan to take this bullshit to the grave with you?
I learned to appreciate the lives of livestock,
You learned a semantic trick, a way to congratulation yourself for consuming
animal products by pretending to "consider" the animals.
No, since I never consumed the ones I learned it by
observing. You're wrong from the start.
Post by Dutch
It's self-serving, circular sophism, that is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY,
obvious to anyone with even moderate intelligence, which excludes you. It's
a dishonest and disgraceful argument.
I have personally met only one meat consumer in person who
could not recognise the significance of the animals' lives
immediately when I pointed it out to them. He did figure it out
though. There was one veg*n I pointed it out to and we discussed
it a number of times, but she could never learn to appreciate
them. But that woman wasn't aware that eliminationists want to
eliminate pets either...she had no clue. She just isn't a very
intelligent person, plus she has the cognitive dissonance thing
she would have to overcome. It was bad enough for the poor woman
to accept the truth about what eliminationists really want, and
she could never move on to any appreciation for the lives of
livestock.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
and doubt
that I'll ever unlearn it. At one time you pretended that you had
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
I was completely and totally wrong when I said that. We don't "give them
life", we have no such capability. It's not "beneficial" to them either
because if we didn't do it they would never exist in the first place to be
worse off. It's also not a contract because a contract requires that both
parties enter into it willingly.
That was and remains to this day the stupidest thing I have ever said.
No, but what you just wrote may be. You expressed a correct
idea but in a stupid way. For years I've suspected that you
parroted that idea without having any clue what you were talking
about, and now you've let me know that what I suspected is the
case. Unless you somehow "unlearned" the idea...LOL!...you must
have lied about comprehending it to begin with. Apparently the
person you parroted it from didn't think it through well enough
to present it correctly, but at least he appreciated it enough to
present it. The question of course is what attracted you to it
enough to copy it and dishonestly (or honestly ignorantly?)
present it as if you believed it in the first place, do you have
any idea about that?

Also, the fact that you don't believe it's ever mutually
beneficial reveals the fact that you are not in favor of decent
AW over elimination. It reveals it clearly. From this point on
whenever you lie about favoring AW over elimination I'll know
that you're lying. I've suspected it very strongly for years, but
from now on I'll know it.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
It was a lie when you pretended it apparently, but I did learn it
and people don't unlearn things like that unless they have some
sort of brain injury. You'll probably never be able to
comprehend, but it would be like unlearning to speak English, or
unlearning how to appreciate music you like, or something like
that. So I've known something for decades that you people will
just never learn. Little children learn it, but people like you
never will. The reality of the situation is that YOU PEOPLE who
are mentally incapable of consideration for the lives of
livestock are in the group of most unrealistic and ingnorant
people on Earth in regards to human influence on animals. I
honestly believe that a person must have a mental defect in order
to believe as you people do, and you in particular more than the
majority of them. You may truly not be aware that you still have
faith in the misnomer, but your inability to appreciate the lives
of the animals we're discussing puts you in that catagory even if
you honestly wish that you had risen above it. You haven't, and
sadly you probably never will. It's up to you IF you are mentally
capable of doing it at all, which you very well may not be.
Dutch
2010-11-08 19:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I learned to appreciate the lives of livestock,
You learned a semantic trick, a way to congratulation yourself for consuming
animal products by pretending to "consider" the animals.
No
Yes

, since I never consumed the ones I learned it by
Post by d***@.
observing. You're wrong from the start.
I doesn't matter if you consume the particular animals or type of animal,
you can still employ the sophistry.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
It's self-serving, circular sophism, that is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY,
obvious to anyone with even moderate intelligence, which excludes you. It's
a dishonest and disgraceful argument.
I have personally met only one meat consumer in person who
could not recognise the significance of the animals' lives
immediately when I pointed it out to them.
You're probably lying, but nonetheless, if you posed the question loaded
with equivocations and false dichotomies as you do here, then they likely
agreed with you just to shut you up.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
and doubt
that I'll ever unlearn it. At one time you pretended that you had
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
I was completely and totally wrong when I said that. We don't "give them
life", we have no such capability. It's not "beneficial" to them either
because if we didn't do it they would never exist in the first place to be
worse off. It's also not a contract because a contract requires that both
parties enter into it willingly.
That was and remains to this day the stupidest thing I have ever said.
No, but what you just wrote may be. You expressed a correct
idea but in a stupid way.
No, I expressed a wrong and fallacious idea in a very articulate manner.
Post by d***@.
Also, the fact that you don't believe it's ever mutually
beneficial
Because a "benefit" cannot be given unless an animal is already living.
Post by d***@.
reveals the fact that you are not in favor of decent
AW
False, AW only applies if the animals are living.
Post by d***@.
over elimination.
False dichotomy.
Post by d***@.
It reveals it clearly. From this point on
whenever you lie about favoring AW over elimination
False dichotomy.
Post by d***@.
I'll know
that you're lying. I've suspected it very strongly for years, but
from now on I'll know it.
Strawman

Nice collection of fallacies you piled up, again.
d***@.
2010-11-10 20:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I learned to appreciate the lives of livestock,
You learned a semantic trick, a way to congratulation yourself for consuming
animal products by pretending to "consider" the animals.
No
Yes
No, and there's no way that you could know. More of your
lying, leaving me to wonder wtf you think you could possibly gain
by lying when I KNOW that you're lying.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
, since I never consumed the ones I learned it by
observing. You're wrong from the start.
I doesn't matter if you consume the particular animals or type of animal,
you can still employ the sophistry.
I can appreciate the lives of those I consume and also those
I do not. You people can appreciate none, which ...LOL!...
certainly does NOT make you appear ethically superior in any way
at all from my pov.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
It's self-serving, circular sophism, that is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY,
obvious to anyone with even moderate intelligence, which excludes you. It's
a dishonest and disgraceful argument.
I have personally met only one meat consumer in person who
could not recognise the significance of the animals' lives
immediately when I pointed it out to them.
You're probably lying,
IF! you honestly feel that way it could onlybe because you
don't associate with meat consumers enough to have a realistic
interpretation of them, just as you can't develop a realistic
interpretation of human influence on animals because you try to
reject everything that works against the misnomer.
Post by Dutch
but nonetheless, if you posed the question loaded
with equivocations and false dichotomies as you do here, then they likely
agreed with you just to shut you up.
I point out that the animals' lives should be given as much
or more consideration that their deaths, and they either have
thought it through and already come to the same conclusion, or
they think about it for a fraction of a second and realise that
it's true. It's much more common for people to take it to the
extreme of not making the quality of life distinction as you
people can not, but when the don't make it they conclude that
anything should be acceptable where when you people don't make it
you conclude that nothing is. I point out the difference to them
though, and have never known anyone not to understand in a brief
period of time. It has ONLY been you misnomer lovers who have
been unable to appreciate what I've been pointing out, and we
know that's because it works against what you WANT to believe.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
and doubt
that I'll ever unlearn it. At one time you pretended that you had
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
I was completely and totally wrong when I said that. We don't "give them
life", we have no such capability. It's not "beneficial" to them either
because if we didn't do it they would never exist in the first place to be
worse off. It's also not a contract because a contract requires that both
parties enter into it willingly.
That was and remains to this day the stupidest thing I have ever said.
No, but what you just wrote may be. You expressed a correct
idea but in a stupid way.
No, I expressed a wrong and fallacious idea
The idea was correct.
Post by Dutch
in a very articulate manner.
The way "you" expressed it was stupid as shit and we both
know it, but whoever actually wrote what you pasted apparently
didn't think it all the way through. OR! Maybe you tried to
convey the idea and were not only so stupid that you didn't
understand what it meant at the time you tried to do it, but you
also changed the wording around to the stupid way you presented
it as well. Any way we look at it the overall idea is correct,
but the presentation was stupid and since you disagree with it
the very fact that it was presented at all BY YOU was also very
stupid.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Also, the fact that you don't believe it's ever mutually
beneficial
Because a "benefit" cannot be given unless an animal is already living.
Post by d***@.
reveals the fact that you are not in favor of decent
AW
False, AW only applies if the animals are living.
It is significant to the future, but you're too stupid to
comprehend how.

. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I'll know
that you're lying. I've suspected it very strongly for years, but
from now on I'll know it.
Str
You have proven it without question, and lying about it even
more can't change that.
Dutch
2010-11-12 04:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I learned to appreciate the lives of livestock,
You learned a semantic trick, a way to congratulation yourself for consuming
animal products by pretending to "consider" the animals.
No
Yes
No, and there's no way that you could know. More of your
lying, leaving me to wonder wtf you think you could possibly gain
by lying when I KNOW that you're lying.
I know from reading your bullshit for 10 years.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
, since I never consumed the ones I learned it by
observing. You're wrong from the start.
I doesn't matter if you consume the particular animals or type of animal,
you can still employ the sophistry.
I can appreciate the lives of those I consume and also those
I do not. You people can appreciate none, which ...LOL!...
certainly does NOT make you appear ethically superior in any way
at all from my pov.
Your "appreciation" is phony.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
It's self-serving, circular sophism, that is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY,
obvious to anyone with even moderate intelligence, which excludes you. It's
a dishonest and disgraceful argument.
I have personally met only one meat consumer in person who
could not recognise the significance of the animals' lives
immediately when I pointed it out to them.
You're probably lying,
IF! you honestly feel that way it could onlybe because you
don't associate with meat consumers enough to have a realistic
interpretation of them, just as you can't develop a realistic
interpretation of human influence on animals because you try to
reject everything that works against the misnomer.
Lie, I reject the LoL, that's what I reject.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
but nonetheless, if you posed the question loaded
with equivocations and false dichotomies as you do here, then they likely
agreed with you just to shut you up.
I point out that the animals' lives should be given as much
or more consideration that their deaths
False dichotomy.

, and they either have
Post by d***@.
thought it through and already come to the same conclusion, or
they think about it for a fraction of a second and realise that
it's true. It's much more common for people to take it to the
extreme of not making the quality of life distinction
Strawman

as you
Post by d***@.
people can not, but when the don't make it they conclude that
anything should be acceptable where when you people don't make it
you conclude that nothing is. I point out the difference to them
though, and have never known anyone not to understand in a brief
period of time. It has ONLY been you misnomer lovers who have
been unable to appreciate what I've been pointing out, and we
know that's because it works against what you WANT to believe.
Strawman
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
and doubt
that I'll ever unlearn it. At one time you pretended that you had
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
I was completely and totally wrong when I said that. We don't "give them
life", we have no such capability. It's not "beneficial" to them either
because if we didn't do it they would never exist in the first place to be
worse off. It's also not a contract because a contract requires that both
parties enter into it willingly.
That was and remains to this day the stupidest thing I have ever said.
No, but what you just wrote may be. You expressed a correct
idea but in a stupid way.
No, I expressed a wrong and fallacious idea
The idea was correct.
It was wrong.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
in a very articulate manner.
The way "you" expressed it was stupid as shit
No it wasn't, it was clear and lucid, but 100% wrong.

and we both
Post by d***@.
know it, but whoever actually wrote what you pasted apparently
didn't think it all the way through. OR! Maybe you tried to
convey the idea and were not only so stupid that you didn't
understand what it meant at the time you tried to do it, but you
also changed the wording around to the stupid way you presented
it as well. Any way we look at it the overall idea is correct,
but the presentation was stupid and since you disagree with it
the very fact that it was presented at all BY YOU was also very
stupid.
The fact that I disagree with it does not make it a poor expression of the
idea, that makes no sense. It is in fact the most concise expression of the
LoL that I have seen in all this time. It just happens to be founded on a
fallacy.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Also, the fact that you don't believe it's ever mutually
beneficial
Because a "benefit" cannot be given unless an animal is already living.
Post by d***@.
reveals the fact that you are not in favor of decent
AW
False, AW only applies if the animals are living.
It is significant to the future, but you're too stupid to
comprehend how.
It is only significant to the future in theory, and *if* in the future
animals do in fact come into existence, and then it is a concern of the
present.

. . .
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I'll know
that you're lying. I've suspected it very strongly for years, but
from now on I'll know it.
Str
You have proven it without question, and lying about it even
more can't change that.
Strawman. You can never convince me or 99% of people that LoL is a valid
argument because it isn't.
d***@.
2010-11-16 20:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I learned to appreciate the lives of livestock,
You learned a semantic trick, a way to congratulation yourself for consuming
animal products by pretending to "consider" the animals.
No
Yes
No, and there's no way that you could know. More of your
lying, leaving me to wonder wtf you think you could possibly gain
by lying when I KNOW that you're lying.
I know from reading your bullshit for 10 years.
You don't know how to do what I encourage people to do,
meaning that you obviously are clueless as to how well or badly
other people who can do it are able to do it. In fact you're so
clueless that you don't even realise that much.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
, since I never consumed the ones I learned it by
observing. You're wrong from the start.
I doesn't matter if you consume the particular animals or type of animal,
you can still employ the sophistry.
I can appreciate the lives of those I consume and also those
I do not. You people can appreciate none, which ...LOL!...
certainly does NOT make you appear ethically superior in any way
at all from my pov.
Your "appreciation" is phony.
It's something that most people can have with no problem, but
that you will never be able to have unless you finally get over
and away from the refuge of clinging to faith in the misnomer.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
It's self-serving, circular sophism, that is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY,
obvious to anyone with even moderate intelligence, which excludes you. It's
a dishonest and disgraceful argument.
I have personally met only one meat consumer in person who
could not recognise the significance of the animals' lives
immediately when I pointed it out to them.
You're probably lying,
IF! you honestly feel that way it could onlybe because you
don't associate with meat consumers enough to have a realistic
interpretation of them, just as you can't develop a realistic
interpretation of human influence on animals because you try to
reject everything that works against the misnomer.
Lie, I reject the LoL, that's what I reject.
All the LoL really does is make those of us who are able to
appreciate it AND who are honestly in favor of decent AW,
consider the lives of animals and determine whether we believe
they are of positive or negative value TO THE ANIMALS. So what
you reject is making that evaluation because sometimes the
animals' lives ARE of positive value, and that works against your
faith in the misnomer. When that happens it engages your
cogintive dissonance causing you to attempt to reject it in any
ways you can think of, usually just by blatant lies and insults.
And that exact thing keeps repeating itself over and over and
over...and I keep pointing out to you that it keeps repeating
itself over and over and over...and that only you can (maybe)
break free and change that to move on....
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
but nonetheless, if you posed the question loaded
with equivocations and false dichotomies as you do here, then they likely
agreed with you just to shut you up.
I point out that the animals' lives should be given as much
or more consideration that their deaths
False dichotomy.
No, but that is what your cogdis wants you to believe.
Post by Dutch
, and they either have
Post by d***@.
thought it through and already come to the same conclusion, or
they think about it for a fraction of a second and realise that
it's true. It's much more common for people to take it to the
extreme of not making the quality of life distinction
Strawman
Nope. Most people I discuss it with even after they recognise
the significance of what I pointed out, don't want to think in
much detail about which particular lives would be of positive
value and which not. You just can't even get to the first step,
much less move on beyond the average person. LOL...it really is
sadly amusing to think that you people who can't get even as far
as the average grade school child, consider yourselves to be
great authorities on this subject.
Post by Dutch
as you
Post by d***@.
people can not, but when the don't make it they conclude that
anything should be acceptable where when you people don't make it
you conclude that nothing is. I point out the difference to them
though, and have never known anyone not to understand in a brief
period of time. It has ONLY been you misnomer lovers who have
been unable to appreciate what I've been pointing out, and we
know that's because it works against what you WANT to believe.
Strawman
No again, and this is true in all aspects of life. People
oppose ideas that work against what they WANT to believe as you
are doing now, and people do whenever they oppose an idea or in
your case you maniacally attempt to oppose what are really
nothing more than basic facts.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
and doubt
that I'll ever unlearn it. At one time you pretended that you had
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
I was completely and totally wrong when I said that. We don't "give them
life", we have no such capability. It's not "beneficial" to them either
because if we didn't do it they would never exist in the first place to be
worse off. It's also not a contract because a contract requires that both
parties enter into it willingly.
That was and remains to this day the stupidest thing I have ever said.
No, but what you just wrote may be. You expressed a correct
idea but in a stupid way.
No, I expressed a wrong and fallacious idea
The idea was correct.
It was wrong.
No, it was not. That means you never did understand it even
when you pretended that you did, which I have suspected for years
and you have confirmed.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
in a very articulate manner.
The way "you" expressed it was stupid as shit
No it wasn't,
Yes it was.
Post by Dutch
it was clear and lucid,
We don't make contracts with the animals we raise for food.
Post by Dutch
but 100% wrong.
It's only wrong in the cases where the animals have lives of
negative value, but you've spent the past decade opposing the
suggestion that people make the distinction between when they do
and when they don't.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
and we both
know it, but whoever actually wrote what you pasted apparently
didn't think it all the way through. OR! Maybe you tried to
convey the idea and were not only so stupid that you didn't
understand what it meant at the time you tried to do it, but you
also changed the wording around to the stupid way you presented
it as well. Any way we look at it the overall idea is correct,
but the presentation was stupid and since you disagree with it
the very fact that it was presented at all BY YOU was also very
stupid.
The fact that I disagree with it does not make it a poor expression of the
idea,
The contract shit sure does.
Post by Dutch
that makes no sense. It is in fact the most concise expression of the
LoL that I have seen in all this time. It just happens to be founded on a
fallacy.
What you pasted is true in some cases and not in other, but
you people ignorantly or deliberately dishonestly want to deny
that aspect of the situation BECAUSE and ONLY BECAUSE doing so
often works against the misnomer. Actually it always does, but
that is waaaaay beyond you at this point.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Also, the fact that you don't believe it's ever mutually
beneficial
Because a "benefit" cannot be given unless an animal is already living.
Post by d***@.
reveals the fact that you are not in favor of decent
AW
False, AW only applies if the animals are living.
It is significant to the future, but you're too stupid to
comprehend how.
It is only significant to the future in theory, and *if* in the future
animals do in fact come into existence,
Not if they don't? Have you already abandoned the dishonest
impression you were trying to create in people if livestock
farming was done away with? All the supposed more animals who
would supposedly exist instead of livestock...supposedly? Have
you already become a traitor to "them" too, as well as to
potential future livestock?
Post by Dutch
and then it is a concern of the
present.
. . .
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I'll know
that you're lying. I've suspected it very strongly for years, but
from now on I'll know it.
Str
You have proven it without question, and lying about it even
more can't change that.
Strawman.
LOL! Lying about things doesn't change them. You have
DEMONSTRATED that you can't appreciate how decent AW will be
significant to the future by opposing consideration of decent
lives today and yesterday, as well as of course the potential
decent lives of the future.
Post by Dutch
You can never convince me or 99% of people that LoL is a valid
argument because it isn't.
In reality it's not an argument at all you poor clueless
fool. As I've pointed out what it does is causes a person to
evaluate whether or not life appears to have positive value for
animals, and in fact it must be done in a case by case way.
Instead of as you people contemptibly suggest we do NOT consider
the animals' lives, in contrast we should consider each one
individually in order to determine whether they appear to be of
positive value, because the LoL is only true and applicable:

"when their life is a fairly happy one." - Herny "AR" Salt
Dutch
2010-11-17 06:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Your "appreciation" is phony.
It's something that most people can have with no problem
Maybe the hicks you talk to are idiots like you. Most people see right
though your transparent bullshit.
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2010-11-18 16:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
, since I never consumed the ones I learned it by
observing. You're wrong from the start.
I doesn't matter if you consume the particular animals or type of animal,
you can still employ the sophistry.
I can appreciate the lives of those I consume and also those
I do not. You people can appreciate none, which ...LOL!...
certainly does NOT make you appear ethically superior in any way
at all from my pov.
Your "appreciation" is phony.
It's something that
It's fake.
C-O-A-L-I-T-I-O-N@cda.ca
2010-11-18 19:37:15 UTC
Permalink
KEEP IT THE HELL OUT OF CANADIAN POLITICS GROUPS
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2010-11-18 17:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
I learned to appreciate the lives of livestock,
You learned a semantic trick, a way to congratulation yourself for consuming
animal products by pretending to "consider" the animals.
No
Yes
No, and
Yes. It's nothing but a sleazy semantic trick. It's rubbish.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
, since I never consumed the ones I learned it by
observing. You're wrong from the start.
I doesn't matter if you consume the particular animals or type of animal,
you can still employ the sophistry.
I can appreciate the lives of
No.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
but nonetheless, if you posed the question loaded
with equivocations and false dichotomies as you do here, then they likely
agreed with you just to shut you up.
I point out that
You point out nothing - zero.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
and doubt
that I'll ever unlearn it.
You didn't learn what you claim. You're imagining nonsense.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
I was completely and totally wrong when I said that. We don't "give them
life", we have no such capability. It's not "beneficial" to them either
because if we didn't do it they would never exist in the first place to be
worse off. It's also not a contract because a contract requires that both
parties enter into it willingly.
That was and remains to this day the stupidest thing I have ever said.
No, but what you just wrote may be. You expressed a correct
idea but in a stupid way.
No, I expressed a wrong and fallacious idea
The idea was correct.
It's not. It's nonsense.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
False, AW only applies if the animals are living.
It is significant to
No significance whatever.
Eric®
2010-10-27 21:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Roy wrote...
Post by Roy
==
Dutch, the constant nym shifter is at it again...how many different
names have you used today? Your whole persona is bullshit.
==
Dutch is a regular on some other ng's.
Roy
2010-10-27 22:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric®
Roy wrote...
Post by Roy
==
Dutch, the constant nym shifter is at it again...how many different
names have you used today? Your whole persona is bullshit.
==
Dutch is a regular on some other ng's.
==
Must have been a spoofer I saw...happens often on Usenet.
==
Eric®
2010-10-27 23:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Roy wrote...
Post by Roy
Post by Eric®
Roy wrote...
Post by Roy
==
Dutch, the constant nym shifter is at it again...how many different
names have you used today? Your whole persona is bullshit.
==
Dutch is a regular on some other ng's.
==
Must have been a spoofer I saw...happens often on Usenet.
==
Yep. I think can.pol is home of the spoofers.
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-27 21:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Butteye Jest
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ŒMumsy¹, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
Œintimidation, violence and terror¹.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror
-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
You're a smart guy there Chom. Got any idea what would motivate someone
to get involved with the fight for animal rights?
Last I heard you can be an activist without threatening people with used
tampons and HIV infections.
d***@.
2010-11-01 16:22:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:01:09 -0700, Chom Noamksy
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Butteye Jest
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ŒMumsy¹, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
Œintimidation, violence and terror¹.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror
-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
You're a smart guy there Chom. Got any idea what would motivate someone
to get involved with the fight for animal rights?
Last I heard you can be an activist without threatening people with used
tampons and HIV infections.
Right. You can be an activist by setting fires, destroying
medical research that helps humans and other animals, by sending
bombs, by attacking people in various ways, by attacking people's
homes and ruining their vehicles, and things like that too. In
fact I've heard that you can even do it by going into graveyards
and digging up the remains of people who people you don't like
loved... Yes, there is more than one way to do it. Oh, another
way is by trying to influence the thoughts of little
children....yup....there are quite a few ways of being an
activist. There's at least on person in aaev who is an activist
by actively attacking the suggestion that we consider the lives
of the animals we're discussing as much or more than their deaths
because doing so works against the elimination objective, and he
has actively been doing it for about a decade.
Dutch
2010-11-01 17:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
There's at least on person in aaev who is an activist
by actively attacking the suggestion that we consider the lives
of the animals we're discussing as much or more than their deaths
because doing so works against the elimination objective, and he
has actively been doing it for about a decade.
You are no different than ARAs who are content to see animals suffer because
they believe it furthers "the elimination objective".

They are hurting their own cause in most people's opinion.

Your transparent self-serving bullshit hurts the cause of legitimate
anti-AR. Fortunately the harm is insignificant because a child can see
through your sophism.
d***@.
2010-11-02 22:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
There's at least on person in aaev who is an activist
by actively attacking the suggestion that we consider the lives
of the animals we're discussing as much or more than their deaths
because doing so works against the elimination objective, and he
has actively been doing it for about a decade.
You are no different than ARAs who are content to see animals suffer because
they believe it furthers "the elimination objective".
That's a damn blatant lie and amusing coming from you, since
you ARE an eliminationist who wants very badly for people to
believe the lives of livestock should not be taken into
consideration because you're afraid (and rightly so) that doing
so works AGAINST the elimination objective.
Post by Dutch
They are hurting their own cause in most people's opinion.
IF!!! you honestly were in favor of decent AW which you very
very very apparently are NOT, you would in exactly the same
position you're being critical of right now. In other words IF!!!
you were, you would be so horrible at it that you would be
working against it as in fact you very obviously are.
Post by Dutch
Your transparent self-serving bullshit hurts the cause of legitimate
anti-AR.
I take the lives of sheep raised for meat and wool into
consideration when I consider human influence on animals. How do
you think my consideration of them is self-serving when I don't
eat any sheep meat or wear any wool?
Post by Dutch
Fortunately the harm is insignificant because a child can see
through your sophism.
You have never explained exactly HOW you want people to think
of consideration for the lives of other creatures as being
sophism. Try explaining it now. Go:
Dutch
2010-11-03 19:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
There's at least on person in aaev who is an activist
by actively attacking the suggestion that we consider the lives
of the animals we're discussing as much or more than their deaths
because doing so works against the elimination objective, and he
has actively been doing it for about a decade.
You are no different than ARAs who are content to see animals suffer because
they believe it furthers "the elimination objective".
That's a damn blatant lie
It's a fact.
Post by d***@.
and amusing coming from you, since
you ARE an eliminationist who wants very badly for people to
believe the lives of livestock should not be taken into
consideration because you're afraid (and rightly so) that doing
so works AGAINST the elimination objective.
No it doesn't and that's not why I oppose it. I oppose it because its
bullshit.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
They are hurting their own cause in most people's opinion.
IF!!! you honestly were in favor of decent AW which you very
very very apparently are NOT, you would in exactly the same
position you're being critical of right now. In other words IF!!!
you were, you would be so horrible at it that you would be
working against it as in fact you very obviously are.
Incoherent rubbish
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Your transparent self-serving bullshit hurts the cause of legitimate
anti-AR.
I take the lives of sheep raised for meat and wool into
consideration when I consider human influence on animals. How do
you think my consideration of them is self-serving when I don't
eat any sheep meat or wear any wool?
Your "consideration" is self-serving because its only function is to make
you feel better.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Fortunately the harm is insignificant because a child can see
through your sophism.
You have never explained exactly HOW you want people to think
of consideration for the lives of other creatures as being
Its sophism because "consideration" normally refers to some form of
generosity, sacrifice or act of kindness. Consideration should be equated
with animal welfare, not The Logic of the Larder, which is nothing more than
a cheap, shabby attempt to capitalize on the fact that animals are alive.
d***@.
2010-11-04 21:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
There's at least on person in aaev who is an activist
by actively attacking the suggestion that we consider the lives
of the animals we're discussing as much or more than their deaths
because doing so works against the elimination objective, and he
has actively been doing it for about a decade.
You are no different than ARAs who are content to see animals suffer because
they believe it furthers "the elimination objective".
That's a damn blatant lie
It's a fact.
That's another damn blatant lie. First you lie, then when I
point it out you tell other lies in a futile attempt to make the
first one somehow become true...then when I point that out you
lie some more....
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
and amusing coming from you, since
you ARE an eliminationist who wants very badly for people to
believe the lives of livestock should not be taken into
consideration because you're afraid (and rightly so) that doing
so works AGAINST the elimination objective.
No it doesn't
LOL!!! I certainly does in cases where the lives appear to be
of positive value, like these (note: your misnomer hugging
brother Rupert felt that the lives of the animals in one of the
following examples might not be worth living):

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=3802569
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
http://www.industryplayer.com/licenceinfo.php?licid=002200
Post by Dutch
and that's not why I oppose it.
That's a lie, since it's the only reason there is to oppose
it.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
They are hurting their own cause in most people's opinion.
IF!!! you honestly were in favor of decent AW which you very
very very apparently are NOT, you would in exactly the same
position you're being critical of right now. In other words IF!!!
you were, you would be so horrible at it that you would be
working against it as in fact you very obviously are.
Incoherent rubbish
That's just another lie with evidence to show it as a lie,
but nothing to show it to be the truth.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Your transparent self-serving bullshit hurts the cause of legitimate
anti-AR.
I take the lives of sheep raised for meat and wool into
consideration when I consider human influence on animals. How do
you think my consideration of them is self-serving when I don't
eat any sheep meat or wear any wool?
Your "consideration" is self-serving because its only function is to make
you feel better.
It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not certain
practices are cruel to the animals as I've pointed out countless
times. But you can't distinguish between which lives we should
feel good about, which we should feel bad about, and which we
should just feel okay with BECAUSE doing so works against
elimination. Actually in favor of some, but not of all as you
people have in mind, which is WHY you're opposed to people having
consideration.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Fortunately the harm is insignificant because a child can see
through your sophism.
You have never explained exactly HOW you want people to think
of consideration for the lives of other creatures as being
Its sophism because "consideration" normally refers to some form of
generosity, sacrifice or act of kindness.
It would be a HUGE sacrifice on your part to develop such
consideration because it would require a complete change in your
way of thinking. It doesn't require any sacrifice for those of us
who are honestly in favor of decent AW though, because it doesn't
work against us as you so obviously feel it works against you.
This btw is yet ANOTHER way that you're displaying yourself as
having faith in elimination.
Post by Dutch
Consideration should be equated
with animal welfare, not The Logic of the Larder,
The Logic of the Larder is how you people refer to having
consideration specifically for the lives of livestock. When you
encourage people to consider the lives of wildlife do you call
that the Logic of the Larder too, or do you call it The Logic of
something else, and if so, what?
Post by Dutch
which is nothing more than
a cheap, shabby attempt to capitalize on the fact that animals are alive.
It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not particular
practices are cruel to the animals, which you obviously can not
do. Your inability to even appreciate it, much less do it, again
displays you as an eliminationist.
Dutch
2010-11-05 17:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT, then you must consider ALL lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.

In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life", and your line of argument defeats itself.

Of course this is all nonsense, we should NOT "consider lives" at all, that
is not our role, we should simply raise livestock and "consider how they
live" i.e. treat them as well as possible.

The Logic of the Larder is an abusive argument.
d***@.
2010-11-07 17:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
Yes we should.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
Post by Dutch
In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life",
You have no idea whether it would or not for one thing, and
you can't make any distinction between lives of positive value
and those of negative value so you pov is meaningless whether it
would or not. The only supposed potential future animals you've
even pretended to care about were mice, frogs and groundhogs, but
you've never been able to explain why we should think more highly
of them than of livestock.
Post by Dutch
and your line of argument defeats itself.
ONLY if a person is in favor of the elimination of livestock,
which I am not.
Post by Dutch
Of course this is all nonsense, we should NOT "consider lives" at all,
We should consider all of them.
Post by Dutch
that
is not our role,
It's one aspect of human influence on animals, regardless of
how you people try to dishonestly and contemptibly deny it.
Post by Dutch
we should simply raise livestock and "consider how they
live" i.e. treat them as well as possible.
The Logic of the Larder [consideration for the lives of other creatures] is an abusive argument.
Consideration for the lives of other creatures is part of
developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on
animals which you still have never done, and probably never will.
Dutch
2010-11-08 07:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
Yes we should.
No, we shouldn't.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Your consideration is only about livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
BULLSHIT, untouched land supports far more wildlife than pasture. For one
thing farmers have to kill off burrowing animals to prevent them from
digging holes that the cattle break their legs in. I've been a cattle
farmer, I've done it.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life",
You have no idea whether it would or not for one thing
It's a no-brainer, wild animals are on average thousands of times smaller
than cattle, yet equally as intelligent and sentient.

, and
Post by d***@.
you can't make any distinction between lives of positive value
and those of negative value so you pov is meaningless whether it
would or not. The only supposed potential future animals you've
even pretended to care about were mice, frogs and groundhogs, but
you've never been able to explain why we should think more highly
of them than of livestock.
I'm suggesting that you give them no more or no less value than livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and your line of argument defeats itself.
ONLY if a person is in favor of the elimination of livestock,
which I am not.
Now you're confused. If you "consider" ALL animals, then at the very least
it makes no difference whether we raise livestock or not. By any reasonable
guess, not raising them leads to many MORE animals.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Of course this is all nonsense, we should NOT "consider lives" at all,
We should consider all of them.
Then we should stop raising livestock immediately, so trillions more small
animals can subsist on the resources we pour into relatively far fewer large
livestock animals.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
that
is not our role,
It's one aspect of human influence on animals, regardless of
how you people try to dishonestly and contemptibly deny it.
Post by Dutch
we should simply raise livestock and "consider how they
live" i.e. treat them as well as possible.
The Logic of the Larder [pretending to have consideration for the lives of
other creatures] is an abusive argument.
Consideration for the lives of other creatures is part of
developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on
animals which you still have never done, and probably never will.
It's grade school sophism, you're just too stupid to see why.
d***@.
2010-11-08 15:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
Yes we should.
No, we shouldn't.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Your consideration is only about livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
BULLSHIT, untouched land supports far more wildlife than pasture. For one
thing farmers have to kill off burrowing animals to prevent them from
digging holes that the cattle break their legs in. I've been a cattle
farmer,
I certainly disbelieve you and consider that to be your most
contemptible and blatant lie yet, which is saying quite a lot for
you. IF you had raised cattle--which you apparently have
not--then you would have no objection to considering their lives.
Again you have displayed the fact that you're a liar by your own
ignorance regarding what you're lying about. More proof that
you're lying is that you would have mentioned it years before
this if it were true. More evidence that you're lying is the fact
that you lie about having children, and of course the stupid
dishonest mistake you made when you pasted the idea about it
being mutually beneficial for humans to raise livestock. You lie
very consistently and you're lying about having "been a cattle
farmer".

How do you justify to yourself that your lying is somehow
ethically superior to not lying? When you lie about something
like you just did it's so obvious that you might as well have
lied that you're from a different planet, which is probably also
a lie that you've told at some point(s) in your life. How do you
justify it to yourself?

Is it easier to justify it to yourself when you think someone
believes you, than it is when someone does not believe you as I
know you're lying about having farmed cattle? It seems that
should make some difference to you, but since I don't lie like
that I can't really relate to how you justify it and what you
think you gain from it ESPECIALLY when I know you're lying.
Post by Dutch
I've done it.
I disbelieve you have ever killed a mammal deliberately,
except for POSSIBLY having poisoned some poor rodent(s).
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life",
You have no idea whether it would or not for one thing
It's a no-brainer, wild animals are on average thousands of times smaller
than cattle, yet equally as intelligent and sentient.
, and
Post by d***@.
you can't make any distinction between lives of positive value
and those of negative value so you pov is meaningless whether it
would or not. The only supposed potential future animals you've
even pretended to care about were mice, frogs and groundhogs, but
you've never been able to explain why we should think more highly
of them than of livestock.
I'm suggesting that you give them no more or no less value than livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and your line of argument defeats itself.
ONLY if a person is in favor of the elimination of livestock,
which I am not.
Now you're confused. If you "consider" ALL animals, then at the very least
it makes no difference whether we raise livestock or not. By any reasonable
guess, not raising them leads to many MORE animals.
Now that you've pretended to get that far you need to go on
and explain why we should STOP raising livestock so that wildlife
can exist on land now used to raise livestock.

While you're at it you need to explain how you would make
sure that the land is not used for anything other than wildlife
refuge. You HAVE to explain that or again you will still have
nothing at all.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Of course this is all nonsense, we should NOT "consider lives" at all,
We should consider all of them.
Then we should stop raising livestock immediately, so trillions more small
animals can subsist on the resources we pour into relatively far fewer large
livestock animals.
You haven't explained why yet, nor how you would see that the
land is used for nothing but wildlife refuge. You still have
nothing but a lame and totally unacceptable claim so far, with no
reason at all for a person to believe you.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
that
is not our role,
It's one aspect of human influence on animals, regardless of
how you people try to dishonestly and contemptibly deny it.
Post by Dutch
we should simply raise livestock and "consider how they
live" i.e. treat them as well as possible.
The Logic of the Larder [pretending to have consideration for the lives of
other creatures] is an abusive argument.
Consideration for the lives of other creatures is part of
developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on
animals which you still have never done, and probably never will.
It's grade school sophism, you're just too stupid to see why.
Only to eliminationists as you continue to reveal yourself to
be. To people in favor of decent AW it's just an aspect of the
situation that needs to be taken into consideration with all the
others. ONLY you people want to selectively pick and choose the
aspects you're willing to consider, while you selectively discard
those that don't support elimination. So of course that's yet
another way you reveal yourself as an eliminationist. This is
another amusing one...this time the amusement coming from how
pathetic it is. Just the idea of you favoring AW over elimination
is amusing when you claim to have no appreciation for the life of
a single creature on the planet, much less for billions of
livestock animals and the associated wildlife.
Dutch
2010-11-08 20:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
Yes we should.
No, we shouldn't.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Your consideration is only about livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
BULLSHIT, untouched land supports far more wildlife than pasture. For one
thing farmers have to kill off burrowing animals to prevent them from
digging holes that the cattle break their legs in. I've been a cattle
farmer,
I certainly disbelieve you and consider that to be your most
contemptible and blatant lie yet, which is saying quite a lot for
you. IF you had raised cattle--which you apparently have
not--then you would have no objection to considering their lives.
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk. I have an objection to self-serving
doubletalk.
Post by d***@.
Again you have displayed the fact that you're a liar by your own
ignorance regarding what you're lying about. More proof that
you're lying is that you would have mentioned it years before
this if it were true. More evidence that you're lying is the fact
that you lie about having children, and of course the stupid
dishonest mistake you made when you pasted the idea about it
being mutually beneficial for humans to raise livestock. You lie
very consistently and you're lying about having "been a cattle
farmer".
I'm not lying, my family raised Hereford cattle in the mid seventies. I
would shoot groundhogs with a .22
Post by d***@.
How do you justify to yourself that your lying is somehow
ethically superior to not lying? When you lie about something
like you just did it's so obvious that you might as well have
lied that you're from a different planet, which is probably also
a lie that you've told at some point(s) in your life. How do you
justify it to yourself?
not lying
Post by d***@.
Is it easier to justify it to yourself when you think someone
believes you, than it is when someone does not believe you as I
know you're lying about having farmed cattle? It seems that
should make some difference to you, but since I don't lie like
that I can't really relate to how you justify it and what you
think you gain from it ESPECIALLY when I know you're lying.
Post by Dutch
I've done it.
I disbelieve you have ever killed a mammal deliberately,
except for POSSIBLY having poisoned some poor rodent(s).
I've never poisoned any rodents.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life",
You have no idea whether it would or not for one thing
It's a no-brainer, wild animals are on average thousands of times smaller
than cattle, yet equally as intelligent and sentient.
, and
Post by d***@.
you can't make any distinction between lives of positive value
and those of negative value so you pov is meaningless whether it
would or not. The only supposed potential future animals you've
even pretended to care about were mice, frogs and groundhogs, but
you've never been able to explain why we should think more highly
of them than of livestock.
I'm suggesting that you give them no more or no less value than livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and your line of argument defeats itself.
ONLY if a person is in favor of the elimination of livestock,
which I am not.
Now you're confused. If you "consider" ALL animals, then at the very least
it makes no difference whether we raise livestock or not. By any reasonable
guess, not raising them leads to many MORE animals.
Now that you've pretended to get that far you need to go on
and explain why we should STOP raising livestock so that wildlife
can exist on land now used to raise livestock.
We shouldn't, we (meaning you) should simply stop pretending that we are
doing some great act of goodness to animal populations by raising livestock,
we aren't, we're arranging animal populations to suit ourselves.
Post by d***@.
While you're at it you need to explain how you would make
sure that the land is not used for anything other than wildlife
refuge. You HAVE to explain that or again you will still have
nothing at all.
See above.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Of course this is all nonsense, we should NOT "consider lives" at all,
We should consider all of them.
Then we should stop raising livestock immediately, so trillions more small
animals can subsist on the resources we pour into relatively far fewer large
livestock animals.
You haven't explained why yet, nor how you would see that the
land is used for nothing but wildlife refuge. You still have
nothing but a lame and totally unacceptable claim so far, with no
reason at all for a person to believe you.
Humans cannot and will not be developing large tracts of farm and pasture
land in the foreseeable future.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
that
is not our role,
It's one aspect of human influence on animals, regardless of
how you people try to dishonestly and contemptibly deny it.
Post by Dutch
we should simply raise livestock and "consider how they
live" i.e. treat them as well as possible.
The Logic of the Larder [pretending to have consideration for the lives of
other creatures] is an abusive argument.
Consideration for the lives of other creatures is part of
developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on
animals which you still have never done, and probably never will.
It's grade school sophism, you're just too stupid to see why.
Only to eliminationists
No, to sensible people.

as you continue to reveal yourself to
Post by d***@.
be. To people in favor of decent AW it's just an aspect of the
situation that needs to be taken into consideration with all the
others. ONLY you people want to selectively pick and choose the
aspects you're willing to consider, while you selectively discard
those that don't support elimination. So of course that's yet
another way you reveal yourself as an eliminationist. This is
another amusing one...this time the amusement coming from how
pathetic it is. Just the idea of you favoring AW over elimination
is amusing when you claim to have no appreciation for the life of
a single creature on the planet, much less for billions of
livestock animals and the associated wildlife.
strawman
d***@.
2010-11-10 20:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
Yes we should.
No, we shouldn't.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Your consideration is only about livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
BULLSHIT, untouched land supports far more wildlife than pasture. For one
thing farmers have to kill off burrowing animals to prevent them from
digging holes that the cattle break their legs in. I've been a cattle
farmer,
I certainly disbelieve you and consider that to be your most
contemptible and blatant lie yet, which is saying quite a lot for
you. IF you had raised cattle--which you apparently have
not--then you would have no objection to considering their lives.
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk.
It's something that most people can easily do, yet
eliminationists can't afford to do at all.
Post by Dutch
I have an objection to self-serving
doubletalk.
Post by d***@.
Again you have displayed the fact that you're a liar by your own
ignorance regarding what you're lying about. More proof that
you're lying is that you would have mentioned it years before
this if it were true. More evidence that you're lying is the fact
that you lie about having children, and of course the stupid
dishonest mistake you made when you pasted the idea about it
being mutually beneficial for humans to raise livestock. You lie
very consistently and you're lying about having "been a cattle
farmer".
I'm not lying, my family raised Hereford cattle in the mid seventies.
If so then your family sucked at it so badly that not a
single one of the poor creatures under your care had a decent
enough life that you could appreciate it as being of positive
value. In contrast to the horrible lives your family's livestock
had to endure, on all the cattle farms I've been on the farmers
have provided the animals with what certainly appeared to be
decent lives of positive value.
Post by Dutch
I
would shoot groundhogs with a .22
Maybe your mother or sister did, but probably not you.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
How do you justify to yourself that your lying is somehow
ethically superior to not lying? When you lie about something
like you just did it's so obvious that you might as well have
lied that you're from a different planet, which is probably also
a lie that you've told at some point(s) in your life. How do you
justify it to yourself?
not lying
Even IF!!! you're not lying about your family having had such
a horrible cattle farm that none of your stock had a life decent
enough to take into consideration, you certainly lie so much that
my question is still way more than justified AND remains.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Is it easier to justify it to yourself when you think someone
believes you, than it is when someone does not believe you as I
know you're lying about having farmed cattle? It seems that
should make some difference to you, but since I don't lie like
that I can't really relate to how you justify it and what you
think you gain from it ESPECIALLY when I know you're lying.
Post by Dutch
I've done it.
I disbelieve you have ever killed a mammal deliberately,
except for POSSIBLY having poisoned some poor rodent(s).
I've never poisoned any rodents.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life",
You have no idea whether it would or not for one thing
It's a no-brainer, wild animals are on average thousands of times smaller
than cattle, yet equally as intelligent and sentient.
, and
Post by d***@.
you can't make any distinction between lives of positive value
and those of negative value so you pov is meaningless whether it
would or not. The only supposed potential future animals you've
even pretended to care about were mice, frogs and groundhogs, but
you've never been able to explain why we should think more highly
of them than of livestock.
I'm suggesting that you give them no more or no less value than livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and your line of argument defeats itself.
ONLY if a person is in favor of the elimination of livestock,
which I am not.
Now you're confused. If you "consider" ALL animals, then at the very least
it makes no difference whether we raise livestock or not. By any reasonable
guess, not raising them leads to many MORE animals.
Now that you've pretended to get that far you need to go on
and explain why we should STOP raising livestock so that wildlife
can exist on land now used to raise livestock.
We shouldn't,
Try explaining why we should not stop then.
Post by Dutch
we (meaning you) should simply stop pretending that we are
doing some great act of goodness to animal populations by raising livestock,
we aren't, we're arranging animal populations to suit ourselves.
Post by d***@.
While you're at it you need to explain how you would make
sure that the land is not used for anything other than wildlife
refuge. You HAVE to explain that or again you will still have
nothing at all.
See above.
LOL!!! You didn't even attempt to explain it above, so this
it more humor because it's not only stupid but the suggestion
that you did attempt to explain is amusing blatant dishonesty,
and amusing be it's so stupid. Here a fun idea though, try
explaining it now because it's extremely significant and if you
can't explain it you litteraly have no argument at all. So here's
giving you another chance.

Try to explain how you would make sure that the land is not
used for anything other than wildlife refuge.
. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
To people in favor of decent AW it's just an aspect of the
situation that needs to be taken into consideration with all the
others. ONLY you people want to selectively pick and choose the
aspects you're willing to consider, while you selectively discard
those that don't support elimination. So of course that's yet
another way you reveal yourself as an eliminationist. This is
another amusing one...this time the amusement coming from how
pathetic it is. Just the idea of you favoring AW over elimination
is amusing when you claim to have no appreciation for the life of
a single creature on the planet, much less for billions of
livestock animals and the associated wildlife.
strawman
LOL!!! That one is especially hilarious because I described
you, to which your replied "strawman". That's a fitting term for
you since you certainly appear to have a defective brain. At
least the strawman in the Wizard of Oz was trying to correct his
problem while you just indulge and wallow in the moronity of your
own, telling countless lies and making claims you can't even
begin to try backing up...
Dutch
2010-11-12 04:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk.
It's something that most people can easily do, yet
eliminationists can't afford to do at all.
It's an equivocation, and self-serving circular lip service which imparts no
value to any animal, ever.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I have an objection to self-serving
doubletalk.
Post by d***@.
Again you have displayed the fact that you're a liar by your own
ignorance regarding what you're lying about. More proof that
you're lying is that you would have mentioned it years before
this if it were true. More evidence that you're lying is the fact
that you lie about having children, and of course the stupid
dishonest mistake you made when you pasted the idea about it
being mutually beneficial for humans to raise livestock. You lie
very consistently and you're lying about having "been a cattle
farmer".
I'm not lying, my family raised Hereford cattle in the mid seventies.
If so then your family sucked at it so badly that not a
single one of the poor creatures under your care had a decent
enough life that you could appreciate it as being of positive
value. In contrast to the horrible lives your family's livestock
had to endure, on all the cattle farms I've been on the farmers
have provided the animals with what certainly appeared to be
decent lives of positive value.
Strawman.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I
would shoot groundhogs with a .22
Maybe your mother or sister did, but probably not you.
Not a chance.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
How do you justify to yourself that your lying is somehow
ethically superior to not lying? When you lie about something
like you just did it's so obvious that you might as well have
lied that you're from a different planet, which is probably also
a lie that you've told at some point(s) in your life. How do you
justify it to yourself?
not lying
Even IF!!! you're not lying about your family having had such
a horrible cattle farm that none of your stock had a life decent
enough to take into consideration, you certainly lie so much that
my question is still way more than justified AND remains.
I would never use the lives of animals as objects of the kind of dishonest
self-congratulating "consideration" you are suggesting.

*If* they are raised I consider their well being, that is the ONLY valid
form of consideration that fits in this situation.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Is it easier to justify it to yourself when you think someone
believes you, than it is when someone does not believe you as I
know you're lying about having farmed cattle? It seems that
should make some difference to you, but since I don't lie like
that I can't really relate to how you justify it and what you
think you gain from it ESPECIALLY when I know you're lying.
Post by Dutch
I've done it.
I disbelieve you have ever killed a mammal deliberately,
except for POSSIBLY having poisoned some poor rodent(s).
I've never poisoned any rodents.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life",
You have no idea whether it would or not for one thing
It's a no-brainer, wild animals are on average thousands of times smaller
than cattle, yet equally as intelligent and sentient.
, and
Post by d***@.
you can't make any distinction between lives of positive value
and those of negative value so you pov is meaningless whether it
would or not. The only supposed potential future animals you've
even pretended to care about were mice, frogs and groundhogs, but
you've never been able to explain why we should think more highly
of them than of livestock.
I'm suggesting that you give them no more or no less value than livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and your line of argument defeats itself.
ONLY if a person is in favor of the elimination of livestock,
which I am not.
Now you're confused. If you "consider" ALL animals, then at the very least
it makes no difference whether we raise livestock or not. By any reasonable
guess, not raising them leads to many MORE animals.
Now that you've pretended to get that far you need to go on
and explain why we should STOP raising livestock so that wildlife
can exist on land now used to raise livestock.
We shouldn't,
Try explaining why we should not stop then.
Because we are entitled to raise livestock to feed ourselves. We can do so
while at the same time being aware of the possible impact on wildlife. We
are predators.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
we (meaning you) should simply stop pretending that we are
doing some great act of goodness to animal populations by raising livestock,
we aren't, we're arranging animal populations to suit ourselves.
Post by d***@.
While you're at it you need to explain how you would make
sure that the land is not used for anything other than wildlife
refuge. You HAVE to explain that or again you will still have
nothing at all.
See above.
LOL!!! You didn't even attempt to explain it above, so this
it more humor because it's not only stupid but the suggestion
that you did attempt to explain is amusing blatant dishonesty,
and amusing be it's so stupid. Here a fun idea though, try
explaining it now because it's extremely significant and if you
can't explain it you litteraly have no argument at all. So here's
giving you another chance.
Try to explain how you would make sure that the land is not
used for anything other than wildlife refuge.
Unecessary, another idiotic diversion. We are under no obligation to ensure
than any particular number of wildlife animals populate any particular land.
Once again you embark on the same kind of silliness that ARAs do.
Post by d***@.
. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
To people in favor of decent AW it's just an aspect of the
situation that needs to be taken into consideration with all the
others. ONLY you people want to selectively pick and choose the
aspects you're willing to consider, while you selectively discard
those that don't support elimination. So of course that's yet
another way you reveal yourself as an eliminationist. This is
another amusing one...this time the amusement coming from how
pathetic it is. Just the idea of you favoring AW over elimination
is amusing when you claim to have no appreciation for the life of
a single creature on the planet, much less for billions of
livestock animals and the associated wildlife.
strawman
LOL!!! That one is especially hilarious because I described
you, to which your replied "strawman". That's a fitting term for
you since you certainly appear to have a defective brain. At
least the strawman in the Wizard of Oz was trying to correct his
problem while you just indulge and wallow in the moronity of your
own, telling countless lies and making claims you can't even
begin to try backing up...
It's a classic strawman because I state unequivocally that I do NOT advocate
the elimination of livestock.

Your insistence that I do despite my clear statements to the contrary is
just more proof of how desperate and stupid you are.
d***@.
2010-11-16 20:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk.
It's something that most people can easily do, yet
eliminationists can't afford to do at all.
It's an equivocation, and self-serving circular lip service which imparts no
value to any animal, ever.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I have an objection to self-serving
doubletalk.
Post by d***@.
Again you have displayed the fact that you're a liar by your own
ignorance regarding what you're lying about. More proof that
you're lying is that you would have mentioned it years before
this if it were true. More evidence that you're lying is the fact
that you lie about having children, and of course the stupid
dishonest mistake you made when you pasted the idea about it
being mutually beneficial for humans to raise livestock. You lie
very consistently and you're lying about having "been a cattle
farmer".
I'm not lying, my family raised Hereford cattle in the mid seventies.
If so then your family sucked at it so badly that not a
single one of the poor creatures under your care had a decent
enough life that you could appreciate it as being of positive
value. In contrast to the horrible lives your family's livestock
had to endure, on all the cattle farms I've been on the farmers
have provided the animals with what certainly appeared to be
decent lives of positive value.
Strawman.
LOL!!! Only to (a) a retard, (b) an eliminationist (which
you've proven yourself to be), or (c) a person who is a bit of
both.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I
would shoot groundhogs with a .22
Maybe your mother or sister did, but probably not you.
Not a chance.
I suspected you did not. Thanks for confirming.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
How do you justify to yourself that your lying is somehow
ethically superior to not lying? When you lie about something
like you just did it's so obvious that you might as well have
lied that you're from a different planet, which is probably also
a lie that you've told at some point(s) in your life. How do you
justify it to yourself?
not lying
Even IF!!! you're not lying about your family having had such
a horrible cattle farm that none of your stock had a life decent
enough to take into consideration, you certainly lie so much that
my question is still way more than justified AND remains.
I would never use the lives of animals as objects of the kind of dishonest
self-congratulating "consideration" you are suggesting.
You're just proving that you can't appreciate the difference
between when they do and when they don't have lives of positive
value.
Post by Dutch
*If* they are raised I consider their well being, that is the ONLY valid
form of consideration that fits in this situation.
Just the fact that you would even say that shows how clueless
you are. "*If* they are raised...." What a retard, to try to make
some huge distinction between animals which exist and supposed
ones which do not, yet being maniacally opposed to appreciating a
distinction between those who DO have lives of positive value and
those who DO have lives of negative value. Clueless!!!
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Is it easier to justify it to yourself when you think someone
believes you, than it is when someone does not believe you as I
know you're lying about having farmed cattle? It seems that
should make some difference to you, but since I don't lie like
that I can't really relate to how you justify it and what you
think you gain from it ESPECIALLY when I know you're lying.
Post by Dutch
I've done it.
I disbelieve you have ever killed a mammal deliberately,
except for POSSIBLY having poisoned some poor rodent(s).
I've never poisoned any rodents.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life",
You have no idea whether it would or not for one thing
It's a no-brainer, wild animals are on average thousands of times smaller
than cattle, yet equally as intelligent and sentient.
, and
Post by d***@.
you can't make any distinction between lives of positive value
and those of negative value so you pov is meaningless whether it
would or not. The only supposed potential future animals you've
even pretended to care about were mice, frogs and groundhogs, but
you've never been able to explain why we should think more highly
of them than of livestock.
I'm suggesting that you give them no more or no less value than livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and your line of argument defeats itself.
ONLY if a person is in favor of the elimination of livestock,
which I am not.
Now you're confused. If you "consider" ALL animals, then at the very least
it makes no difference whether we raise livestock or not. By any reasonable
guess, not raising them leads to many MORE animals.
Now that you've pretended to get that far you need to go on
and explain why we should STOP raising livestock so that wildlife
can exist on land now used to raise livestock.
We shouldn't,
Try explaining why we should not stop then.
Because we are entitled to raise livestock to feed ourselves. We can do so
while at the same time being aware of the possible impact on wildlife.
LOL! Yet for a decade you have maniacally opposed
consideration of the impact WE DO HAVE on livestock.
Post by Dutch
We
are predators.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
we (meaning you) should simply stop pretending that we are
doing some great act of goodness to animal populations by raising livestock,
we aren't, we're arranging animal populations to suit ourselves.
Post by d***@.
While you're at it you need to explain how you would make
sure that the land is not used for anything other than wildlife
refuge. You HAVE to explain that or again you will still have
nothing at all.
See above.
LOL!!! You didn't even attempt to explain it above, so this
it more humor because it's not only stupid but the suggestion
that you did attempt to explain is amusing blatant dishonesty,
and amusing be it's so stupid. Here a fun idea though, try
explaining it now because it's extremely significant and if you
can't explain it you litteraly have no argument at all. So here's
giving you another chance.
Try to explain how you would make sure that the land is not
used for anything other than wildlife refuge.
Unecessary,
That blatant lies is as piss poor a copout as you could have
attempted.
Post by Dutch
another idiotic diversion.
No, but your cogdis wants you to believe it is.
Post by Dutch
We are under no obligation to ensure
than any particular number of wildlife animals populate any particular land.
Once again you embark on the same kind of silliness that ARAs do.
YOU brought up the stupid idea to begin with so don't try
turning it around on me. I told you it was stupid from the start,
and you're proving that you can't even attempt to make it appear
as anything better than that.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
To people in favor of decent AW it's just an aspect of the
situation that needs to be taken into consideration with all the
others. ONLY you people want to selectively pick and choose the
aspects you're willing to consider, while you selectively discard
those that don't support elimination. So of course that's yet
another way you reveal yourself as an eliminationist. This is
another amusing one...this time the amusement coming from how
pathetic it is. Just the idea of you favoring AW over elimination
is amusing when you claim to have no appreciation for the life of
a single creature on the planet, much less for billions of
livestock animals and the associated wildlife.
strawman
LOL!!! That one is especially hilarious because I described
you, to which your replied "strawman". That's a fitting term for
you since you certainly appear to have a defective brain. At
least the strawman in the Wizard of Oz was trying to correct his
problem while you just indulge and wallow in the moronity of your
own, telling countless lies and making claims you can't even
begin to try backing up...
It's a classic strawman because I state unequivocally that I do NOT advocate
the elimination of livestock.
You will need to stop lying about that if you ever want to
have an honest exchange of any kind.
Post by Dutch
Your insistence that I do despite my clear statements to the contrary is
just more proof of how desperate and stupid you are.
There are a number of things that show us you're still
addicted to the misnomer, and nothing at all to show that you're
not even if you honestly wish you no longer were. You still are
and sadly you're one of the ones who will probably never be able
to move on beyond it, even if you truly wish that you could.
Dutch
2010-11-17 06:34:38 UTC
Permalink
<***@.> wrote the same old bullshit

You're a hopeless idiot, I give up.
Eric®
2010-11-17 06:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
You're a hopeless idiot, I give up.
Whoo hoo!!
d***@.
2010-11-18 18:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric®
Dutch wrote...
Post by Dutch
You're a hopeless idiot, I give up.
Whoo hoo!!
It appears that Goo might be going to take over for a while.
Years ago Goo agreed to try to "protect" the elimination
objective from the suggestion that people give the lives of
livestock as much or more consideration than their deaths:
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: goin' where?
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:28:22 -0800
Post by Eric®
As democratically-elected spokesperson of alt.food.vegan, I offer you the
coveted position of 'Official David Mauler'.
Your role will be to protect us all from that 'goofy shitbag'. Do you accept
this important responsibility?
I'll do my best to live up to it. I think I've helped
some already.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Since billions of livestock exist only because they're raised for
food I've been suggesting that people take that aspect into
consideration, and because that works directly against their
objective eliminationists have been maniacally attempting to
oppose the suggestion the entire time. Goo and "Dutch" both
appear to be eliminationists who are dishonestly and very poorly
attempting to create the impression that they are misnomer
opponents with a maniacal desire to prevent people from
considering and learning to appreciate the lives of any of the
animals they consume. They amusingly want people to think they
are in favor of decent AW, while they are obviously opposed to
people recognising and appreciating the fact that millions of
livestock animals experience decent lives of positive value only
because they're raised for food. No one who is truly in favor of
decent AW would be opposed to considering the millions of cases
in which animals have benefitted from it, are benefitting from it
now, and will benefit from it in the future. ONLY eliminationists
have reason to try to oppose consideration of those aspects.
d***@.
2010-11-18 18:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk.
It's something that most people can easily do, yet
eliminationists can't afford to do at all.
It's an equivocation, and self-serving circular lip service which imparts no
value to any animal, ever.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I have an objection to self-serving
doubletalk.
Post by d***@.
Again you have displayed the fact that you're a liar by your own
ignorance regarding what you're lying about. More proof that
you're lying is that you would have mentioned it years before
this if it were true. More evidence that you're lying is the fact
that you lie about having children, and of course the stupid
dishonest mistake you made when you pasted the idea about it
being mutually beneficial for humans to raise livestock. You lie
very consistently and you're lying about having "been a cattle
farmer".
I'm not lying, my family raised Hereford cattle in the mid seventies.
If so then your family sucked at it so badly that not a
single one of the poor creatures under your care had a decent
enough life that you could appreciate it as being of positive
value. In contrast to the horrible lives your family's livestock
had to endure, on all the cattle farms I've been on the farmers
have provided the animals with what certainly appeared to be
decent lives of positive value.
Strawman.
LOL!!! Only to (a) a retard, (b) an eliminationist (which
you've proven yourself to be), or (c) a person who is a bit of
both.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I
would shoot groundhogs with a .22
Maybe your mother or sister did, but probably not you.
Not a chance.
I suspected you did not. Thanks for confirming.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
How do you justify to yourself that your lying is somehow
ethically superior to not lying? When you lie about something
like you just did it's so obvious that you might as well have
lied that you're from a different planet, which is probably also
a lie that you've told at some point(s) in your life. How do you
justify it to yourself?
not lying
Even IF!!! you're not lying about your family having had such
a horrible cattle farm that none of your stock had a life decent
enough to take into consideration, you certainly lie so much that
my question is still way more than justified AND remains.
I would never use the lives of animals as objects of the kind of dishonest
self-congratulating "consideration" you are suggesting.
You're just proving that you can't appreciate the difference
between when they do and when they don't have lives of positive
value.
Post by Dutch
*If* they are raised I consider their well being, that is the ONLY valid
form of consideration that fits in this situation.
Just the fact that you would even say that shows how clueless
you are. "*If* they are raised...." What a retard, to try to make
some huge distinction between animals which exist and supposed
ones which do not, yet being maniacally opposed to appreciating a
distinction between those who DO have lives of positive value and
those who DO have lives of negative value. Clueless!!!
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Is it easier to justify it to yourself when you think someone
believes you, than it is when someone does not believe you as I
know you're lying about having farmed cattle? It seems that
should make some difference to you, but since I don't lie like
that I can't really relate to how you justify it and what you
think you gain from it ESPECIALLY when I know you're lying.
Post by Dutch
I've done it.
I disbelieve you have ever killed a mammal deliberately,
except for POSSIBLY having poisoned some poor rodent(s).
I've never poisoned any rodents.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
In other words without livestock there would be a net greater number of
animals "experiencing life",
You have no idea whether it would or not for one thing
It's a no-brainer, wild animals are on average thousands of times smaller
than cattle, yet equally as intelligent and sentient.
, and
Post by d***@.
you can't make any distinction between lives of positive value
and those of negative value so you pov is meaningless whether it
would or not. The only supposed potential future animals you've
even pretended to care about were mice, frogs and groundhogs, but
you've never been able to explain why we should think more highly
of them than of livestock.
I'm suggesting that you give them no more or no less value than livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
and your line of argument defeats itself.
ONLY if a person is in favor of the elimination of livestock,
which I am not.
Now you're confused. If you "consider" ALL animals, then at the very least
it makes no difference whether we raise livestock or not. By any reasonable
guess, not raising them leads to many MORE animals.
Now that you've pretended to get that far you need to go on
and explain why we should STOP raising livestock so that wildlife
can exist on land now used to raise livestock.
We shouldn't,
Try explaining why we should not stop then.
Because we are entitled to raise livestock to feed ourselves. We can do so
while at the same time being aware of the possible impact on wildlife.
LOL! Yet for a decade you have maniacally opposed
consideration of the impact WE DO HAVE on livestock.
Post by Dutch
We
are predators.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
we (meaning you) should simply stop pretending that we are
doing some great act of goodness to animal populations by raising livestock,
we aren't, we're arranging animal populations to suit ourselves.
Post by d***@.
While you're at it you need to explain how you would make
sure that the land is not used for anything other than wildlife
refuge. You HAVE to explain that or again you will still have
nothing at all.
See above.
LOL!!! You didn't even attempt to explain it above, so this
it more humor because it's not only stupid but the suggestion
that you did attempt to explain is amusing blatant dishonesty,
and amusing be it's so stupid. Here a fun idea though, try
explaining it now because it's extremely significant and if you
can't explain it you litteraly have no argument at all. So here's
giving you another chance.
Try to explain how you would make sure that the land is not
used for anything other than wildlife refuge.
Unecessary,
That blatant lies is as piss poor a copout as you could have
attempted.
Post by Dutch
another idiotic diversion.
No, but your cogdis wants you to believe it is.
Post by Dutch
We are under no obligation to ensure
than any particular number of wildlife animals populate any particular land.
Once again you embark on the same kind of silliness that ARAs do.
YOU brought up the stupid idea to begin with so don't try
turning it around on me. I told you it was stupid from the start,
and you're proving that you can't even attempt to make it appear
as anything better than that.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
. . .
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
To people in favor of decent AW it's just an aspect of the
situation that needs to be taken into consideration with all the
others. ONLY you people want to selectively pick and choose the
aspects you're willing to consider, while you selectively discard
those that don't support elimination. So of course that's yet
another way you reveal yourself as an eliminationist. This is
another amusing one...this time the amusement coming from how
pathetic it is. Just the idea of you favoring AW over elimination
is amusing when you claim to have no appreciation for the life of
a single creature on the planet, much less for billions of
livestock animals and the associated wildlife.
strawman
LOL!!! That one is especially hilarious because I described
you, to which your replied "strawman". That's a fitting term for
you since you certainly appear to have a defective brain. At
least the strawman in the Wizard of Oz was trying to correct his
problem while you just indulge and wallow in the moronity of your
own, telling countless lies and making claims you can't even
begin to try backing up...
It's a classic strawman because I state unequivocally that I do NOT advocate
the elimination of livestock.
You will need to stop lying about that if you ever want to
have an honest exchange of any kind.
Post by Dutch
Your insistence that I do despite my clear statements to the contrary is
just more proof of how desperate and stupid you are.
There are a number of things that show us you're still
addicted to the misnomer, and nothing at all to show that you're
not even if you honestly wish you no longer were. You still are
and sadly you're one of the ones who will probably never be able
to move on beyond it, even if you truly wish that you could.
You're a hopeless idiot,
I'm not hopeless or idiot enough to believe your lies though.
You are an eliminationist, and so is Goo, and by now you have
confirmed it almost as well as if you had actully admitted it.
Post by Dutch
I give up.
For the past few weeks I had begun to wonder if Goo would
come back and relieve you for a while, or if you people were
about to decide to finally give it up. One thing you
eliminationists have shown without question over the past ten
years is that you ARE very much afraid of people learning to
appreciate the lives of livestock.
Dutch
2010-11-18 19:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
One thing you
eliminationists have shown without question over the past ten
years is that you ARE very much afraid of people learning to
appreciate the lives of livestock.
We're not "eliminationists" and your "appreciation of livestock" is phony,
transparent, self-serving lip service.

The Logic of the Larder is an attempt to combat Animal Rights with
sophistry.
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2010-11-18 16:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Even IF!!! you're not lying about your family having had such
a horrible cattle farm that none of your stock had a life decent
enough to take into consideration, you certainly lie so much that
my question is still way more than justified AND remains.
I would never use the lives of animals as objects of the kind of dishonest
self-congratulating "consideration" you are suggesting.
You're just proving that you can't appreciate
Causing animals to live is not providing any "benefit" to them. Not
causing them to live is not withholding any "benefit".
T. Howard Pines, jr.
2010-11-13 07:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
   The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
   Yes we should.
No, we shouldn't.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
   I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Your consideration is only about livestock.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
   The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
BULLSHIT, untouched land supports far more wildlife than pasture. For one
thing farmers have to kill off burrowing animals to prevent them from
digging holes that the cattle break their legs in. I've been a cattle
farmer,
   I certainly disbelieve you and consider that to be your most
contemptible and blatant lie yet, which is saying quite a lot for
you. IF you had raised cattle--which you apparently have
not--then you would have no objection to considering their lives.
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk.
    It's something that most people can easily do, yet
It's nothing; it's nonsense. You don't do it.
d***@.
2010-11-16 20:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, jr.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
Yes we should.
No, we shouldn't.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Your consideration is only about livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
BULLSHIT, untouched land supports far more wildlife than pasture. For one
thing farmers have to kill off burrowing animals to prevent them from
digging holes that the cattle break their legs in. I've been a cattle
farmer,
I certainly disbelieve you and consider that to be your most
contemptible and blatant lie yet, which is saying quite a lot for
you. IF you had raised cattle--which you apparently have
not--then you would have no objection to considering their lives.
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk.
It's something that most people can easily do, yet
eliminationists can't afford to do at all.
It's nothing; it's nonsense. You don't do it.
LOL! Yes I do and most people can easily do so too Goo. In
fact Goober, afawk it is ONLY eliminationists who as a group can
not afford to consider the lives of livestock.
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2010-11-17 05:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by T. Howard Pines, jr.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
Yes we should.
No, we shouldn't.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Your consideration is only about livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
BULLSHIT, untouched land supports far more wildlife than pasture. For one
thing farmers have to kill off burrowing animals to prevent them from
digging holes that the cattle break their legs in. I've been a cattle
farmer,
I certainly disbelieve you and consider that to be your most
contemptible and blatant lie yet, which is saying quite a lot for
you. IF you had raised cattle--which you apparently have
not--then you would have no objection to considering their lives.
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk.
It's something that most people can easily do, yet
eliminationists can't afford to do at all.
It's nothing; it's nonsense. You don't do it.
LOL! Yes I do and
No, you don't.
d***@.
2010-11-18 18:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by T. Howard Pines, jr.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
I oppose it because its bullshit.
The fact that you encourage people to consider the lives of
wildlife proves that you don't think the idea is bullshit,
revealing the fact that you're lying again.
I have said that *if* you are going to "consider lives" which you should
NOT,
Yes we should.
No, we shouldn't.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
then you must consider ALL
I've been pointing that out and you have been opposing it for
about ten years...well...you have been LYING about it for about
ten years.
Your consideration is only about livestock.
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
lives and that includes the wildlife which
would exist if we did not divert so many resources to raising livestock.
The pasture land I've seen get used for something else
usually if not always supports LESS wildlife than it did as
pasture land.
BULLSHIT, untouched land supports far more wildlife than pasture. For one
thing farmers have to kill off burrowing animals to prevent them from
digging holes that the cattle break their legs in. I've been a cattle
farmer,
I certainly disbelieve you and consider that to be your most
contemptible and blatant lie yet, which is saying quite a lot for
you. IF you had raised cattle--which you apparently have
not--then you would have no objection to considering their lives.
"Considering their lives" is doubletalk.
It's something that most people can easily do, yet
eliminationists can't afford to do at all.
It's nothing; it's nonsense. You don't do it.
LOL! Yes I do and most people can easily do so too Goo. In
fact Goober, afawk it is ONLY eliminationists who as a group can
not afford to consider the lives of livestock.
No
Yes Goo. ONLY eliminationists.
Archie
2010-10-27 10:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamksy
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ‘Mumsy’, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
‘intimidation, violence and terror’.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-...
Whenever you run across a principled person you must feel curious and
baffled.
Roy
2010-10-27 13:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Archie
Post by Chom Noamksy
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ‘Mumsy’, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
‘intimidation, violence and terror’.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-...
Whenever you run across a principled person you must feel curious and
baffled.
==
Good thing that there was a "principled" judge around to put the
miserable wretch in prison. I have no patience with people who harm
others because they object to using animals for necessary research.
==
d***@.
2010-10-27 14:50:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:30:11 -0700 (PDT), Archie
Post by Archie
Whenever you run across a principled person you must feel curious and
baffled.
Not always as much with some as with others. These people are
principled too, and imo much more realistically:

http://www.amprogress.org/animal-research-benefits

Then in contrast there are these type people:
_________________________________________________________
April 4, 2005 Burton, UK:
In letters to the media, a group calling itself the Animal Rights
Militia offered to return “one-sixth” of the remains of the 82
year old mother-in-law of a part-owner of Darley Oakes Farm,
which raises guinea pigs for biomedical research. The woman’s
body was stolen from her grave in October. . .

February 19, 2005 Chino Hills, CA:
Animal rights activists vandalized the home of the chief
veterinarian for the city of Los Angeles. They threw rocks
through windows, and left behind fliers with the veterinarian’s
photo, accusing her of animal cruelty. ALF is suspected in this
incident as well as prior threats against the veterinarian
and other employees of the LA City Animal Shelter.

January 12, 2005 Auburn, CA:
Five incendiary devices were found in an office building under
construction. Devices of the same type were discovered in an
upscale subdivision in near-by Lincoln on December 27. Official
stated the firebombs were capable of extensive damage. Graffiti
found on the Lincoln homes included “U will pay” and “Enjoy the
world as it is - as long as you can.” In a letter sent to the
Auburn Journal on January 18, ELF claimed responsibility, and
warned of more terrorist attempts to come - "We are setting a new
precedent, where there will be at least one or more actions every
few weeks," it read. The Joint Terrorism Task Force is
investigating.

September 5, 2004: East Peckham, England: Animal Rights activists
vowed to launch ten "terror attacks" a night across Britain. An
ALF spokesman at a "training camp" for AR activists to learn
"direct action" said "Ten attacks a night would be an absolute
minimum "Think of the number of butcher shops: at least a couple
of windows are already being broken every night and then you have
people spraying graffiti on cars to those targeting employees of
Huntingdon Life Sciences." There have been reports of at
least six serious incidents in the last ten days, including
attacks on cars and other property of people connection with
GlaxoSmithKline, HLS, and a farm raising guinea pigs for
research.

August 11, 2002:
Arson by the ELF caused $700,000 worth of damage at a Forest
Service lab in Irvine, PA, and destroyed 70 years of research
focused on maintaining a healthy forest ecosystem. An e-mail from
Elf's office said "While innocent life will never be harmed in
any action we undertake, where it is necessary, we will no longer
hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and provide the
needed protection for our planet that decades of legal battles,
pleading protest, and economic sabotage have failed so
drastically to achieve." It further stated that all Forest
Service stations were targeted, and, if rebuilt, the Pennsylvania
station would be targeted for complete destruction.

September 21, 2001 UK:
Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and
individuals over a three-month period last winter, was sentenced
to indefinite detention in mental hospital. Additional court
ordered restrictions mean that Harding will not be released until
the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no risk to the
public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and
one child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for
life. At trial, evidence indicated that he had intended to mail
as many as 100 letter bombs.

August 16, 2001 UK:
One of the three men who assaulted Brian Cass, managing director
of Huntingdon Life Sciences, at his home, received a sentence of
three years in jail for his part in the attack. David Blenkinsop
and two others donned ski masks and ambushed Cass as he arrived
home, bludgeoning him with wooden staves and pickaxe handles. DNA
on the handles and Blenkinsop’s clothing helped convict him of
the offense.

June 12, 2001 MO:
A 30-year-old animal rights activist attacked a "Survivor" series
cast member at a workplace safety promotion, pepper
spraying him in the face and hitting several onlookers, including
children, aswell. Police arrested the attacker. Michael Skupin,
who lasted six weeks on"Survivor," attributed the attack to his
killing of a pig for food on the series.

May 31, 2001 Canada:
In a raid late this month, Toronto police arrested two men and
put out an appeal for apprehension of a third in connection
with animal cruelty charges stemming from the videotaped skinning
of live animals. The video showed a cat being tortured and killed
allegedly by a self-styled artist and vegan protesting animal
cruelty. Anthony Ryan Wenneker, 24, and Jessie Champlain Powers,
21 were arrested. The raid turned up a headless, skinned cat in
the refrigerator, along with other animal skeletons, including a
dog, some mice and rats, and the videos. Police are searching for
the third person seen in the videos.

May 23, 2001 UK:
Three men, ages 34, 31 and 34, were arrested for the
attack on Brian Cass, Director of Huntingdon Life Sciences. The
baseball bat brandishing attackers split Cass' scalp and bruised
him and sprayed a would-be rescuer with CS gas on February 22,
2001. One of the men was arrested at an animal sanctuary run by
TV script writer Carla Lane.

May 9, 2001 Israel:
Shraga Segal, an immunologist and former dean of the
Ben-Gurion University medical school, resigned his post as
chairman of the government body that supervises research
involving animals. Segal received a faxed death threat and
threats of violence against his family.

April 27, 2001 WA:
Governor Gary Locke signed into law this week a
measure that would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly interfere
with or recklessly injure a guide dog, or to allow one's dog to
obstruct or intimidate a guide dog. Repeat offenses could net up
to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The measure sailed through
the legislature in record time after reports of blind people
being harassed by animal rights fanatics, both verbally and
by looking for opportunities to separate the guide dogs from
their owners.

April 19, 2001 UK:
In the US District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the US subsidiary of Huntingdon Life Sciences joined in the
filing of an amended complaint against SHAC, Voices for Animals,
Animal Defense League, In Defense of Animals, and certain
individuals. The amended filing asserts claims under the Civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Statute (RICO) and
cited physical attacks on individual employees, death threats,
bomb threats, destruction of property, burglary, harassment and
intimidation; and also asserts claims for interference with
contractual relations and economic advantage. The original
plaintiffs in the action were the Stephens Group and its wholly
owned investment-banking subsidiary, Stephens, Inc.

February 23, 2001 UK:
In a major public escalation of animal rights terrorist violence,
the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences was attacked as
he arrived home by three masked goons wielding baseball bats or
ax handles. Brian Cass, 53, bludgeoned with head and body wounds
and bruises, including a 3-inch scalp gash, was saved from
further injury by his girl friend's screams and the aid of two
passersby. One of the Good Samaritans chased the attackers, but
was debilitated by CS gas from one of the attackers. Cass,
stitched up and back at work the next day, vowed to continue the
work of HLS, which includes government mandated tests seeking
cures for dementia, diabetes, AIDS, asthma and other diseases. In
reaction to the attack, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder who is no longer
with the group, condoned the attack and expressed surprise that
it didn't happen more often, declaring that Cass got off
"lightly." Other animal rights groups publicly backed off
condoning the act, but expressed "understanding" of how it could
occur. In calendar year 2000, 11 Huntingdon employees' cars were
firebombed.

February 21, 2001 UK:
Two men ages 26 and 36, and one 31 year-old woman were arrested
in connection with letter bombing attacks against at least eleven
agricultural businesses. Since December 10, 2000, three bombs
were intercepted, but 5 of 10 others exploded, causing serious
eye and facial injury to two adults, and leg wounds to a 6-year
old daughter of one of the intended victims. Authorities
considered all of the bombs potentially lethal. The businesses
included pet supply, pest control, farming, agricultural supply,
and a livestock auction agency.

February 13, 2001 Scotland:
A letter bomb was sent to an agricultural entity in the Borders.
Army experts were called out to defuse the bomb.

February 12, 2001 UK:
An agricultural firm in North Yorkshire received a letter bomb
which was defused without incident by army experts.

February 4, 2001 UK:
In an attack near Nantwich, Cheshire Beagles master George
Murray, his wife and five other hunt members were assaulted by
masked animal rights activists. At least five hunt members were
injured by the stick- and whip-wielding attackers. Murray was
beaten, kicked in the head and face and his wife was punched in
the face. They were threatened with death as retribution for the
death 10 years ago of hunt saboteur Michael Hill.

January 31, 2001 UK:
A letter bomb exploded in Cumbria in a charity shop owned by the
British Heart Foundation. The woman who opened the package was
not injured.

January 30, 2001 UK:
Two nail bombs, sent to an agricultural supplier in Sheffield and
a cancer research campaign shop in Lancashire, were detected and
defused by authorities before being opened by the recipients.
Both bomb attacks were linked to letter bomb mailings that
started in mid-December.

January 5, 2001 UK:
Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by
letter bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye
injuries from the explosion.

January 5, 2001 UK:
A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an
exploding letter bomb.

December 30, 2000 UK:
A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded,
injuring the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her
father with the mail. The girl was cut on her legs and feet by
shrapnel from the envelope. Authorities suspect animal rights
activists in the bombing.

October 23, 2000 UK:
Two hunt members received death threats and car bombs. Both were
on a publicized list of seven huntsmen considered to be
"legitimate targets" by the Hunt Retribution Squad." All seven
had received threatening letters on September 4, 2000. Amateur
whip David Pitfield's van was destroyed by one bomb in South
Nutfield, Surrey. The bomb under a woman hunt member's vehicle in
East Sussex, discovered five hours later, did not detonate and
was removed by army bomb experts. Both bombs were considered
lethal.

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
d***@.
2010-10-27 14:47:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:24:18 -0700, Chom Noamksy
Sarah Whitehead, a middle-aged hospital nurse nicknamed ‘Mumsy’, was
jailed last night for spearheading an extreme animal rights campaign of
‘intimidation, violence and terror’.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Her group – protesting about an animal testing laboratory – also
spread false paedophilia smears against their victims and sent
them used tampons, claiming the blood was HIV-positive.

Their claims even led to entirely unconnected people being
attacked, such as the owners of a home which once belonged to one
of their targets.
. . .
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them, so its followers are better known as misnomer advocates
(addicts, huggers...) or even more clearly as eliminationists.
Misnomer type terrorism is only carried out by misnomer
addicts afaik. For example I've never heard of animal welfare
terrorists, but only heard of it associated with eliminationists.
Their terrorist acts don't help anything, but instead they
cause MORE suffering in various ways like directly to their
victims, by causing huge increases in costs to both researchers
and consumers, by creating a need for experiments to be repeated
causing more suffering to humans and research animals, by causing
more suffering for both humans and other animals in the future
due to delays they cause in research today, etc. So it's not a
big surprise that people like that, taking the actions that they
do, attack unconnected people as well as their intended targets.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
The youngest, Alfie Fitzpatrick, was just 17 when he was
recruited to the cause
. . .
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
They like to convert people while they are still young,
before they have a chance to think things all the way through. If
they can get people to believe in their cause while their minds
are still flexible, they know that a significant number of them
will grow comfortable with the choice and then cognitive
dissonance will shield them from being able to recognise negative
aspects of the misnomer when they're presented. That's why groups
like PeTA target small children...specifically to exploit their
naive position.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
The group’s campaign led to damage and increased security costs
amounting to £12.6million.
. . .
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Bad for humans. Bad for other animals. Good for nothing.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Judge Keith Cutler told the group: ‘You are not going to prison
for expressing your beliefs – you are going to prison because you
have committed a serious criminal offence.’

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/845133-nurse-mumsy-s-animal-rights-reign-of-terror-sees-her-jailed-for-six-years
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It seems they may have committed much much more than just 'a
serious criminal offence'.
Dutch
2010-10-27 19:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in any
way.

Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says, "Another
usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-27 21:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
Dutch
2010-10-28 05:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we want
them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion about
the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we did NOT
raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire no moral
advantage by doing so.
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-28 06:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source of
food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open your
mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of canines,
followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars. The
incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat meat
meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of meat
while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild ones
all the time.
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-28 06:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source of
food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open your
mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of canines,
followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars. The
incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat meat
meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of meat
while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild ones
all the time.
I should add, which makes the eating of animals a terribly moral thing
for human kind, because eating animals made us who and what we are
today. Even your capacity for altruism was made possible by eating
tasty animals.
Dutch
2010-10-28 06:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source of
food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open your
mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of canines,
followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars. The
incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat meat
meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of meat
while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild ones
all the time.
I should add, which makes the eating of animals a terribly moral thing for
human kind, because eating animals made us who and what we are today.
Even your capacity for altruism was made possible by eating tasty animals.
No argument, but the issue is we are not more moral because of the fact that
livestock are alive. We are more moral if we act in ways that lead to
animals' lives being better.
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-28 07:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source of
food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open your
mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of canines,
followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars. The
incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat meat
meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of meat
while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild ones
all the time.
I should add, which makes the eating of animals a terribly moral thing
for human kind, because eating animals made us who and what we are
today. Even your capacity for altruism was made possible by eating
tasty animals.
No argument, but the issue is we are not more moral because of the fact
that livestock are alive. We are more moral if we act in ways that lead
to animals' lives being better.
Can't disagree with that, unless you mean we can't eventually put those
animals in our tummies.
Dutch
2010-10-28 18:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source of
food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open your
mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of canines,
followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars. The
incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat meat
meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of meat
while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild ones
all the time.
I should add, which makes the eating of animals a terribly moral thing
for human kind, because eating animals made us who and what we are
today. Even your capacity for altruism was made possible by eating
tasty animals.
No argument, but the issue is we are not more moral because of the fact
that livestock are alive. We are more moral if we act in ways that lead
to animals' lives being better.
Can't disagree with that, unless you mean we can't eventually put those
animals in our tummies.
I don't mean that. We raise the animals for that purpose and I see nothing
wrong with that process per se. What I find offensive is this circular,
self-serving argument that we can consider the animals very lives as a
factor when determining whether or not raising them is moral or not. You
will see those shabby, half-baked arguments in all their glory when dh@
replies to the conversation.
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-28 19:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
I don't mean that. We raise the animals for that purpose and I see
nothing wrong with that process per se. What I find offensive is this
circular, self-serving argument that we can consider the animals very
lives as a factor when determining whether or not raising them is moral
or not. You will see those shabby, half-baked arguments in all their
I don't see it that way. If one considers the process of evolution it
can't even take place unless there is constant cyclical generation.
Considering the history of life on the planet revolves around evolution
you could infer that evolution is the most moral thing there is.
Without the constant process of mutation, adaptation and selection the
robustness of life declines and eventually dies off. Domestication
promotes robustness.
Dutch
2010-10-28 20:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
I don't mean that. We raise the animals for that purpose and I see
nothing wrong with that process per se. What I find offensive is this
circular, self-serving argument that we can consider the animals very
lives as a factor when determining whether or not raising them is moral
or not. You will see those shabby, half-baked arguments in all their
I don't see it that way.
What way don't you see what?
Post by Chom Noamksy
If one considers the process of evolution it can't even take place unless
there is constant cyclical generation. Considering the history of life on
the planet revolves around evolution you could infer that evolution is the
most moral thing there is. Without the constant process of mutation,
adaptation and selection the robustness of life declines and eventually
dies off. Domestication promotes robustness.
I don't get where you're heading with this line, but domestic animals are
very far from robust by comparison with their wild counterparts. Domestic
turkeys are so big they can barely move, and don't even get me started on
purebred dogs. Robustness evolves by exposure to threats and challenges.
Dutch
2010-10-28 06:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source of
food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open your
mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of canines,
followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars. The incisors
and canines are specifically designed for eating meat meat meat. The
premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of meat while severing
it with your incisors and canines. The molars and premolars also happen
to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now have a look at your
brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That brain was only made
possible by a high protein diet. Eating a high-protein diet is what
boosted the intellectual capacity of humans from monkey to king ape.
Since meat has one of the highest protein contents of common human foods
we must have eaten a looooot of meat during our evolution, and its far
easier to secure a supply of high value protein raising domestic animals,
rather than go chasing wild ones all the time.
OK, I am a meat eater, I love meat and eat it every day. I'm not disputing
the utility to humans of raising animals. It's a useful activity and
perfectly moral and right, provided the animals are not caused undue
suffering.

But that's not what I'm talking about, the issue is an esoteric one, not
easily seen at first glance. dh@ contends that since livestock "experience
life" due to human's demand for animal products we are doing something
admirable by "providing them with life". I am saying that is a circular and
self-serving sophistic argument. He even attacks vegetarians because their
diets don't support these livestock lives. That's why I call him a fuckwit.
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-28 07:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source
of food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open
your mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of
canines, followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars.
The incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat
meat meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of
meat while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild
ones all the time.
OK, I am a meat eater, I love meat and eat it every day. I'm not
disputing the utility to humans of raising animals. It's a useful
activity and perfectly moral and right, provided the animals are not
caused undue suffering.
But that's not what I'm talking about, the issue is an esoteric one, not
"experience life" due to human's demand for animal products we are doing
something admirable by "providing them with life". I am saying that is a
circular and self-serving sophistic argument. He even attacks
vegetarians because their diets don't support these livestock lives.
That's why I call him a fuckwit.
Depends on how you define morality. I define it as anything that
promotes life and is conducive to life, both in quantity and quality.
So I don't see anything wrong or immoral with raising animals for the
express purpose of eating them. Cattle, for example, are fed well
because skinny cows don't fetch a good price at market. And they
receive veterinary attention when they need it, because sick and dead
cows don't make you much money either. All in all, up until the bolt
gun goes off, a domestic cow has a pretty contented life... eating and
shitting and eating and shitting... possibly humping once a year as
cattle are known to do. That satisifies my quality of life test. It
isn't so pleasant for other animals like chickens raised in factories.
I believe chickens should roam free and scratch at the earth before
eating them, living in a tiny prison cage from birth until death is
definitely not quality living.
neil
2010-10-28 14:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source
of food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open
your mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of
canines, followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars.
The incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat
meat meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of
meat while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild
ones all the time.
OK, I am a meat eater, I love meat and eat it every day. I'm not
disputing the utility to humans of raising animals. It's a useful
activity and perfectly moral and right, provided the animals are not
caused undue suffering.
But that's not what I'm talking about, the issue is an esoteric one, not
"experience life" due to human's demand for animal products we are doing
something admirable by "providing them with life". I am saying that is a
circular and self-serving sophistic argument. He even attacks
vegetarians because their diets don't support these livestock lives.
That's why I call him a fuckwit.
Depends on how you define morality. I define it as anything that promotes
life and is conducive to life, both in quantity and quality. So I don't
see anything wrong or immoral with raising animals for the express purpose
of eating them.
========================================================================
Yeah that's why farmers in the Southern US kept their 'niggers' healthy or
the coal companies (before unions) provided workers with just enough wages
so that they would be strong enough to produce and reproduce (keep the work
market glutted).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cattle, for example, are fed well
because skinny cows don't fetch a good price at market. And they receive
veterinary attention when they need it, because sick and dead cows don't
make you much money either. All in all, up until the bolt gun goes off, a
domestic cow has a pretty contented life... eating and shitting and eating
and shitting... possibly humping once a year as cattle are known to do.
That satisifies my quality of life test. It isn't so pleasant for other
animals like chickens raised in factories. I believe chickens should roam
free and scratch at the earth before eating them, living in a tiny prison
cage from birth until death is definitely not quality living.
Dutch
2010-10-28 18:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source
of food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open
your mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of
canines, followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars.
The incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat
meat meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of
meat while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild
ones all the time.
OK, I am a meat eater, I love meat and eat it every day. I'm not
disputing the utility to humans of raising animals. It's a useful
activity and perfectly moral and right, provided the animals are not
caused undue suffering.
But that's not what I'm talking about, the issue is an esoteric one, not
"experience life" due to human's demand for animal products we are doing
something admirable by "providing them with life". I am saying that is a
circular and self-serving sophistic argument. He even attacks
vegetarians because their diets don't support these livestock lives.
That's why I call him a fuckwit.
Depends on how you define morality. I define it as anything that promotes
life and is conducive to life, both in quantity and quality.
There is no evidence to support the idea that raising livestock per se does
either.

Quality of life is advanced by specific animal welfare measures, not by
raising livestock.

Quantity of life is determined by available resources, in other words if
cattle and pigs are not being fed and watered then that amount of raw
material supports larger populations of other non-livestock species like
moles, rabbits, etc.. Arguably far more by sheer numbers due to their much
smaller size.

In other words, we get no quantity or quality (of life) advantage in any
moral calculation by raising livestock. The argument is spurious and
self-serving.
So I don't see anything wrong or immoral with raising animals for the
express purpose of eating them. Cattle, for example, are fed well because
skinny cows don't fetch a good price at market. And they receive
veterinary attention when they need it, because sick and dead cows don't
make you much money either. All in all, up until the bolt gun goes off, a
domestic cow has a pretty contented life... eating and shitting and eating
and shitting... possibly humping once a year as cattle are known to do.
That satisifies my quality of life test. It isn't so pleasant for other
animals like chickens raised in factories. I believe chickens should roam
free and scratch at the earth before eating them, living in a tiny prison
cage from birth until death is definitely not quality living.
There's a good example where the "quantity" idea falls down; laying hens are
the result of a process where the newborn chicks are sexed, the males are
tossed on a conveyor belt to be ground up alive for feed. So 100% more
animal lives are promoted by this process than would the case if they could
predetermine the sex before hatching. By the quantity rule of morality then
the conveyer belt system is a moral good that should be promoted.
Chom Noamksy
2010-10-28 19:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source
of food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open
your mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of
canines, followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars.
The incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat
meat meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of
meat while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild
ones all the time.
OK, I am a meat eater, I love meat and eat it every day. I'm not
disputing the utility to humans of raising animals. It's a useful
activity and perfectly moral and right, provided the animals are not
caused undue suffering.
But that's not what I'm talking about, the issue is an esoteric one, not
"experience life" due to human's demand for animal products we are doing
something admirable by "providing them with life". I am saying that is a
circular and self-serving sophistic argument. He even attacks
vegetarians because their diets don't support these livestock lives.
That's why I call him a fuckwit.
Depends on how you define morality. I define it as anything that
promotes life and is conducive to life, both in quantity and quality.
There is no evidence to support the idea that raising livestock per se
does either.
Quality of life is advanced by specific animal welfare measures, not by
raising livestock.
Quantity of life is determined by available resources, in other words if
cattle and pigs are not being fed and watered then that amount of raw
material supports larger populations of other non-livestock species like
moles, rabbits, etc.. Arguably far more by sheer numbers due to their
much smaller size.
In other words, we get no quantity or quality (of life) advantage in any
moral calculation by raising livestock. The argument is spurious and
self-serving.
Animals bred for domestic purposes are no less living things than
animals bred in the wild. They experience life in a different
environment but at least have the opportunity to experience it. You
can't say the life of domestic animals is all bad or all good, and that
depends heavily on the keeper's practices. When I see a cow contentedly
chewing its cud without a care in the world, I see an animal who is
experiencing a pretty good life. But we project our human values onto
animals so we can never really be anything but purely subjective about
it. We can only make behavioral observations then make conclusions from
the human perspective.
Post by Dutch
So I don't see anything wrong or immoral with raising animals for the
express purpose of eating them. Cattle, for example, are fed well
because skinny cows don't fetch a good price at market. And they
receive veterinary attention when they need it, because sick and dead
cows don't make you much money either. All in all, up until the bolt
gun goes off, a domestic cow has a pretty contented life... eating and
shitting and eating and shitting... possibly humping once a year as
cattle are known to do. That satisifies my quality of life test. It
isn't so pleasant for other animals like chickens raised in factories.
I believe chickens should roam free and scratch at the earth before
eating them, living in a tiny prison cage from birth until death is
definitely not quality living.
There's a good example where the "quantity" idea falls down; laying hens
are the result of a process where the newborn chicks are sexed, the
males are tossed on a conveyor belt to be ground up alive for feed. So
100% more animal lives are promoted by this process than would the case
if they could predetermine the sex before hatching. By the quantity rule
of morality then the conveyer belt system is a moral good that should be
promoted.
I presented two criteria -- quality and quantity -- the chicken factory
example only satisfies one in my books.
Dutch
2010-10-28 20:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
them
That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
any way.
Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
"Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
want them to.
It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
no moral advantage by doing so.
The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source
of food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open
your mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of
canines, followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars.
The incisors and canines are specifically designed for eating meat
meat meat. The premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of
meat while severing it with your incisors and canines. The molars and
premolars also happen to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now
have a look at your brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That
brain was only made possible by a high protein diet. Eating a
high-protein diet is what boosted the intellectual capacity of humans
from monkey to king ape. Since meat has one of the highest protein
contents of common human foods we must have eaten a looooot of meat
during our evolution, and its far easier to secure a supply of high
value protein raising domestic animals, rather than go chasing wild
ones all the time.
OK, I am a meat eater, I love meat and eat it every day. I'm not
disputing the utility to humans of raising animals. It's a useful
activity and perfectly moral and right, provided the animals are not
caused undue suffering.
But that's not what I'm talking about, the issue is an esoteric one, not
"experience life" due to human's demand for animal products we are doing
something admirable by "providing them with life". I am saying that is a
circular and self-serving sophistic argument. He even attacks
vegetarians because their diets don't support these livestock lives.
That's why I call him a fuckwit.
Depends on how you define morality. I define it as anything that
promotes life and is conducive to life, both in quantity and quality.
There is no evidence to support the idea that raising livestock per se
does either.
Quality of life is advanced by specific animal welfare measures, not by
raising livestock.
Quantity of life is determined by available resources, in other words if
cattle and pigs are not being fed and watered then that amount of raw
material supports larger populations of other non-livestock species like
moles, rabbits, etc.. Arguably far more by sheer numbers due to their
much smaller size.
In other words, we get no quantity or quality (of life) advantage in any
moral calculation by raising livestock. The argument is spurious and
self-serving.
Animals bred for domestic purposes are no less living things than animals
bred in the wild. They experience life in a different environment but at
least have the opportunity to experience it. You can't say the life of
domestic animals is all bad or all good, and that depends heavily on the
keeper's practices. When I see a cow contentedly chewing its cud without
a care in the world, I see an animal who is experiencing a pretty good
life. But we project our human values onto animals so we can never really
be anything but purely subjective about it. We can only make behavioral
observations then make conclusions from the human perspective.
I can't really disagree with any of that, but I'm not sure what point you're
making.
Post by Dutch
So I don't see anything wrong or immoral with raising animals for the
express purpose of eating them. Cattle, for example, are fed well
because skinny cows don't fetch a good price at market. And they
receive veterinary attention when they need it, because sick and dead
cows don't make you much money either. All in all, up until the bolt
gun goes off, a domestic cow has a pretty contented life... eating and
shitting and eating and shitting... possibly humping once a year as
cattle are known to do. That satisifies my quality of life test. It
isn't so pleasant for other animals like chickens raised in factories.
I believe chickens should roam free and scratch at the earth before
eating them, living in a tiny prison cage from birth until death is
definitely not quality living.
There's a good example where the "quantity" idea falls down; laying hens
are the result of a process where the newborn chicks are sexed, the
males are tossed on a conveyor belt to be ground up alive for feed. So
100% more animal lives are promoted by this process than would the case
if they could predetermine the sex before hatching. By the quantity rule
of morality then the conveyer belt system is a moral good that should be
promoted.
I presented two criteria -- quality and quantity -- the chicken factory
example only satisfies one in my books.
How is more chickens a moral victory in any way? Remember that nature, of
which farming and domesticated animals is an extension, is a zero sum game.
d***@.
2010-11-01 16:15:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:09:42 -0700, Chom Noamksy
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
we get no quantity or quality (of life) advantage in any
moral calculation by raising livestock. The argument is spurious and
self-serving.
"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
Post by Chom Noamksy
Animals bred for domestic purposes are no less living things than
animals bred in the wild.
Notice that those people encourage us to consider the lives
of wildlife who would supposedly come into existence in places
where livestock would no longer be raised, but they are
maniacally opposed to us considering the lives of livestock who
have existed, do exist, and will exist because they're raised for
food. Also, in situations where I've seen livestock areas become
something else they have become commercial or residential areas
supporting FEWER wildlife than they did when they were used for
livestock, not more as people like "Dutch" would dishonestly like
everyone to believe.
Post by Chom Noamksy
They experience life in a different
environment but at least have the opportunity to experience it. You
can't say the life of domestic animals is all bad or all good,
"Dutch" has flip-flopped around on that issue a number of
times but in general he tries to insist that things like that
should not be taken into consideration, because doing so works
against the elimination objective. But! In the past he has let it
slip that he actually is capable of understanding and thinking
somewhat realistically about the subject, or he has simply
parotted those who can without understanding what he pasted
himself. Either way, here is an example of one such slip:

"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
Post by Chom Noamksy
and that
depends heavily on the keeper's practices.
Here are a few more examples which show that he's at least
somewhat aware of what you pointed out:

"I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor
when assessing the morality related to food animals." - "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
Post by Chom Noamksy
When I see a cow contentedly
chewing its cud without a care in the world, I see an animal who is
experiencing a pretty good life. But we project our human values onto
animals so we can never really be anything but purely subjective about
it. We can only make behavioral observations then make conclusions from
the human perspective.
We can consider the fact that those animals DO experience
decent lives of positive value, and only because they are raised
for food. We can go on to consider that humans CAN provide decent
lives and humane deaths for the vast majority of the billions of
animals raised for food, and that it will become more popular if
more consumers take an interest in the lives of livestock
animals. The availability of cage free eggs is one very good
example. Those types of examples work AGAINST the elimination
objective in favor of decent AW instead, and that is exactly why
people like "Dutch" are opposed to seeing people consider those
animals' lives. As things are it's much easier to find veg*n
selections of food than it is food produced in animal friendly
ways, and that is how those people like it and want it to remain.
People with an interest in promoting decent AW of course feel
completely different about it and would like to see consumers
have more interest in the lives of livestock, not less. That's
one of the ways in which "Dutch" reveals his true intent even
though he dishonestly claims to be in favor of AW. He amusingly
claims to support it even as he works directly against it trying
to encourage acceptance of the elimination objective.
Post by Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
Post by Chom Noamksy
So I don't see anything wrong or immoral with raising animals for the
express purpose of eating them. Cattle, for example, are fed well
because skinny cows don't fetch a good price at market. And they
receive veterinary attention when they need it, because sick and dead
cows don't make you much money either. All in all, up until the bolt
gun goes off, a domestic cow has a pretty contented life... eating and
shitting and eating and shitting... possibly humping once a year as
cattle are known to do. That satisifies my quality of life test. It
isn't so pleasant for other animals like chickens raised in factories.
I believe chickens should roam free and scratch at the earth before
eating them, living in a tiny prison cage from birth until death is
definitely not quality living.
There's a good example where the "quantity" idea falls down; laying hens
are the result of a process where the newborn chicks are sexed, the
males are tossed on a conveyor belt to be ground up alive for feed. So
100% more animal lives are promoted by this process than would the case
if they could predetermine the sex before hatching. By the quantity rule
of morality then the conveyer belt system is a moral good that should be
promoted.
I presented two criteria -- quality and quantity -- the chicken factory
example only satisfies one in my books.
People like "Dutch" only want us to consider the bad things
that happen to livestock, but they never want to see people
consider the good. And of course they're even more opposed to
seeing people consider the potential good things for livestock
that could happen in the future, than they're opposed to seeing
them consider the good things that are happening already.

Because the term "animal rights" is a gross misnomer in
regards to domestic animals:
_________________________________________________________
"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does, which
is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and
thrive." - "Dutch"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
since the objective is to eliminate them NOT provide them with
rights or anything at all, I believe it's more honest to refer to
people like "Dutch" as misnomer advocates/addicts/huggers, or
simply as eliminationists.
Dutch
2010-11-01 17:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:09:42 -0700, Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
we get no quantity or quality (of life) advantage in any
moral calculation by raising livestock. The argument is spurious and
self-serving.
"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
I am also aware that it is dishonest and circular sophism to use that as a
rationalization for raising them, as you do.
d***@.
2010-11-02 22:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:09:42 -0700, Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
we get no quantity or quality (of life) advantage in any
moral calculation by raising livestock. The argument is spurious and
self-serving.
"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
I am also aware that it is dishonest and circular sophism to use that as a
rationalization for raising them, as you do.
It's not a rationalization for raising them as I always tell
you. Raising them for food is rationalization enough. It's a
rationalization for not ceasing to raise them because they are
killed, as I've been pointing out and you have been opposing all
these years.
Dutch
2010-11-03 19:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@.
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:09:42 -0700, Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
we get no quantity or quality (of life) advantage in any
moral calculation by raising livestock. The argument is spurious and
self-serving.
"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
I am also aware that it is dishonest and circular sophism to use that as a
rationalization for raising them, as you do.
It's not a rationalization for raising them
Yes it is.
Post by d***@.
as I always tell
you. Raising them for food is rationalization enough.
That's the reason, not a rationalization.

For fucks sakes you don't even know the difference between a reason and a
rationalization. How fucking far did you make in school, grade six?
Post by d***@.
It's a
rationalization for not ceasing to raise them because they are
killed, as I've been pointing out and you have been opposing all
these years.
No, that would be called a reason.
T. Howard Pines, jr.
2010-11-13 07:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by d***@.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:09:42 -0700, Chom Noamksy
Post by Dutch
we get no quantity or quality (of life) advantage in any
moral calculation by raising livestock. The argument is spurious and
self-serving.
"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
I am also aware that it is dishonest and circular sophism to use that as a
rationalization for raising them, as you do.
    It's not a rationalization for raising them
It is. That's exactly what it is; that's all it is.
d***@.
2010-11-16 20:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, jr.
It's a rationalization for not ceasing to raise them because they are
killed
It is. That's exactly what it is
Yes Goo as I pointed out, that's what it is.
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2010-11-17 05:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. Howard Pines, jr.
It's a rationalization for not ceasing to raise them because they are
killed
It is. That's exactly what it is
Yes as I pointed out,
It is a rationalization; nothing more.
Fear Itself
2010-11-04 13:17:05 UTC
Permalink
I see where at least some animals got a little break last election in
California --

I see where Kochs' brothers ('Georgia Pacific' maybe Cato and Heritage
too), and Murdochs ('Faux News', Wall Street Journal, local CBS
stations, Haper Books, 20th Century Fox movies, Satelite TV all over
Europe (used to be DirecTv too etc etc) -- couldn't BUY everything.
Welcome to the 21st Century Robber Barons !!!

California says no to the Koch Brothers: Proposition 23 fails
Examiner.com - =E2=80=8E12 hours ago=E2=80=8E
Californians stuck their collective middle finger at the Koch Brothers
and oil companies who had poured big money into the state to pass
proposition 23,


Auburn Journal - =E2=80=8E22 hours ago=E2=80=8E
All are in bed with the Oil companies like Exxon and Koch and Chevron
and BP, and all intend to gut domestic spending and go after the elderly
of the future ...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...