Agriculture Industry :: View topic - Government-bought farms collapse

Agriculture Industry
Agriculture Industry

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Government-bought farms collapse
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 28, 29, 30 Next

Agriculture Industry Forum Index -> Agriculture Industry

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Dutch
Guest

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

<dh@.> wrote in message news:6q6e531ic4504qbk8l2fr836hiirkvrb75@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:52:08 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@.> wrote
On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

[..]

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." - Dutch

is simply a pathetic attempt to grab credit that you in no way are
entitled to, and never will be entitled to.

It's not an attempt to grab credit,

Yes it is. Everything you do and all you are capable of, is trying to
obtain the most moral browny points...whatever "they" are.

Projection, brownie points is exactly what you are trying to gain for
"providing decent lives of positive value". It's what the LoL is all
about.
I discredit the LoL as cheap sophistry.

it's a fact, raising livestock does not
cause more animals to be born and "experience life", it cause different
ones
to be born and "experience life", and there is no objective reason for
anyone to have a preference towards livestock aside from the fact that
they
are useful.

If you hadn't slipped up and accidently been honest once in the past
a person could wonder if you truly were ignorant enough to believe that,
but you did accidently reveal the fact that do know better:

"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious." - Dutch

That doesn't mean we ought to raise more farm animals, or that we're bad
if
we don't.

That certainly doesn't reduce the significance of providing lives of
positive value in the least tiny little bit. But since you can't
appreciate
the significance at all, you're necessarily incapable of understanding
anything about that at all. Duh.

In fact in that huge mistake you made by your accidental honesty, you
even let people know you believe it's "obvious". Sometimes--like this
time--mistakes you made in the past return to shine a brilliant
spotlight
on lies you're trying to get away with right now.

The notion that people do something wrong by "denying life" to
livestock is nonsense, literally nonsense.

Agreed.

Then quit pretending that ARAs are proposing something immoral with their
"elimination agenda". It's not immoral per se,

Calling it "animal rights" is contemptible and immoral right from the
start. It gets more dishonest AND lamer the more we look into it from
there.

it is simply unwise, impractical and something we disagree with.

You think it would be better to leave the land to wildlife, even
though you can't say to which wildlife, much less why it would
be better, or what it would be better for.

But providing decent lives of positive value is still a significant
aspect of human influence on animals, whether you "aras" hate it or not.

The "positive value" part is morally significant when compared against the
alternative which is "negative value" i.e poor husbandry practices leading
to suffering.

"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious." - Dutch

The "providing lives" part is NOT morally significant

It certainly is an aspect to consider when considering whether or
not it's cruel to THEM to be raised for food. You're just completely
incapable of doing that.

as compared with the
alternative to that, which is deciding to never raise those animals at
all.
That has no moral content.

You are in no position to impose any such restriction, but it's
still amusing that you think you are for some reason.

When you say the phrase, "providing decent lives of positive value is
significant" you employing sophistry by conflating a significant aspect
with
one which has no significance, attempting to leave the impression that
both
have moral significance.

Their lives have as much significance as their deaths, regardless
of the fact that you have no idea how it could be the case.

Stop pushing the LoL fuckwit.

Quote:

Good treatment has a positive effect on animals' lives. Animals' lives don't
benefit the argument for consuming animal products.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:26:17 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Quote:

dh@.> wrote in message news:6q6e531ic4504qbk8l2fr836hiirkvrb75@4ax.com...

Their lives have as much significance as their deaths, regardless
of the fact that you have no idea how it could be the case.

Stop pushing the LoL fuckwit.

The biggest question remains: Why did you ever want to try to
persuade people to believe that you can understand something:

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental experiences)
are beneficial to animals." - Dutch

that you are admittedly not only clueless about, but you don't
even believe?

Good treatment has a positive effect on animals' lives. Animals' lives don't
benefit the argument for consuming animal products.

Yes they do, by overcoming your absurd, selfish, dishonest,
totally inconsiderate insistance that we do not, ONLY BECAUSE
it suggests that some alternatives could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of livestock. It's always the same.
You people are twisted to begin with, and then you make each
other worse by encouraging each other. Meanwhile billions of
animals experience life because humans raise them for food,
and you hypocrites who feel you are authorities on animals aren't
even capable of considering the significance of that aspect of
things for those very same animals! Just describing your position
sounds like something out of a bad sci fi story or something.

I've been wondering about that aspect for a year or more now...
When you first heard/read Charlotte's Web and it had a tremendous
impact on your thinking from that time on, what was it that slammed
you so very badly? Do you know exactly what it was in the pathetic
story that twisted you into this mess you have become?

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:49:52 GMT, the Goober wrote:

Quote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always, lied:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:26:24 GMT, Goo wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied::
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:41:35 GMT, Goo wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:

Okay Goober, then try to explain how you think you
disagree with yourself about this one, if you have any
clue at all.
Yes, "okay", Goober Fuckwit: you "think" the lives of livestock are morally meaningful before they occur, and that is wrong and stupid and illogical. You are a stupid fuckwit, Goober Fuckwit. You lose.
Then try to explain it Goo.
Done, many dozens of times, Fuckwit. Go back and reread it. Waste your own time, Fuckwit - you are too stupid and talentless to waste mine.

You lose, Fuckwit. Coming into existence is not a "benefit" to farm animals, and therefore "vegans" wishing to eliminate livestock are not doing any non-existent "future farm animals" any disservice, as you stupidly and wrongly claim they are. You lose.

LOL! You dreamed it Goobs, which is exactly why neither
of us can find even a trace of it. You've become so deluded
that you think your dreams are reality even though you
can't find any evidence of their existence while you're
awake. Start keeping a pad and pen nearby when you
sleep, and see if you can write down whatever it is you
think you're trying to talk about if you can ever remember
it long enough after you wake up. It would be interesting
to learn what you think you believe, if you can ever
remember what you think it is, Goo.

No. I demonstrated it conclusively, dozens of times.

Let's see some example(s) Goonad.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:52:41 GMT, Goo wrote:

Quote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:49:20 GMT, Goo wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:

On 17 May 2007 12:36:45 -0700, Goo wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:

What do you have to oppose consideration of the animals' lives?

There is no REASON to give any moral consideration to whether or not
they exist.

It is NECESSARY in order to

No. It is not necessary for anything.
Obviously not for anything you are capable of.
There is nothing of which you are capable that I am
not,

Then try to explain how lives of positive value:

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful *IF* the
livestock exist. " - Goo

ever are meaningful in regards to livestock, Goo.

One only needs to think about that if the animals
exist.

Try to explain how they are meaningful when
they do, Goo.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:23:43 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Quote:

dh pointed out:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:24:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:05:46 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:14:36 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
dh pointed out:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 04:31:35 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

[..]
There's no reason to give their lives consideration,

There is if you care anything about human influence on
animals.

That doesn't follow,

LOL! That one still gets me from time to time...lol...

Quote:

there's no valid reason to give their lives
consideration.

It is necessary in order to consider all the significant
aspects
of human influence on them.

It isn't necessary at all,

It is in order to consider all the significant aspects of human
influence on them.

It's a complete red herring.

The fact you're referring to is self evident.

It's irrelevant,

Not to people in favor of decent AW.

Yes to them especially.

No, not to them ever. People who are able to really think about
whether or not it's cruel to raise animals for food, and have come
to the conclusion that it's not when the animals are provided with
lives of what they consider to be decent enough conditions, are
who I'm talking about. They are the type people who are really in
favor of decent AW, BECAUSE they see it as being if not a benefit
at least a fair enough trade that they honestly don't consider it to be
unacceptable. That is something you can't even imagine. You have
either tried or lied about trying:

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

but whether you actually tried or not, you were unable to do it:

"I believed it long enough to say it."

"I don't believe that any more. I was trying that idea out to see how it
felt to say it, it felt dirty,"

Quote:

People genuinely concerned with AW are completely
uninterested in the notion that livestock somehow benefit from coming into
existence. The idea contributes nothing of value to the discussion.

I am showing without question--by your own examples!--that you
don't have any idea what you're talking about because you can't
even comprehend being in favor of AW to begin with. To really
accept the idea, you must consider whether or not farming them
is cruel TO THE ANIMALS, and in order to that you must consider
THEIR LIVES and arrive at the conclusion that it is at least acceptably
fair to them. You have arrived at the conclusion that it is not and can
not be made fair to them, which means that you are not capable of
truly being in FAVOR of AW since you can't meet the minimum
requirements inside your own head because it makes you "feel dirty"
....so you say. In contrast to that I not only meet the minimum requirements
but can go beyond to understand and appreciate the fact that many
livestock animals do have what I consider to be lives of positive value.
Since you can't even understand much less accept or appreciate the
very basics of what it means to be in favor of AW, while I accepted
and moved beyond that over 30 years ago, it's no wonder some of the
significant things I point out to you are meaningless to you. It's still
pathetic though...year after year...and I do point that out too...

Quote:

that is self-evident.

Unless they are bred they won't exist,

That fact proves the fact you referred to in such a remarkably
dishonest way.

It proves nothing,

Yes it does, but you can't comprehend what.

It possibly shows that you're a fool,

Try to explain how.

Quote:

but that is also self-evident.

it's a self-evident fact which has no moral importance.

therefore there is no human influence,

That's just a blatant lie.

It's a self-evident fact

It's a lie.

Unless they are bred they won't exist is a fact.

Proving again you lied when you claimed:

"therefore there is no human influence"

Quote:

which should not even need to be said.

Such lies should never be told at all.

It's a self-evident fact that should not even need to be mentioned.

Not even you believe that.

Quote:

that *is* true, but not worth mentioning.

Do you have any idea what you mean by that?

Yes, I know exactly what I mean by it. The fact that livestock animals
only
exist because of our appetites and need for products

Proves that you were lying blatantly when you said: "there is no human
influence". So--as is usually the case with you--the question arises:

The entire sentence reads, "Unless they are bred they won't exist, therefore
there is no human influence."

They are bred and they do exist.

Quote:

An animal that is never born is not influenced by us, cannot be deprived of
welfare" or "denied life". All of those statements which you either made
explicitly or directly implied in some form are nonsensical sophistry.

WHY are you lying THIS time???

Why are you pretending that my factual arguments are lies?

Your confusion is messing up what you're actually saying. When you
try to present your "they won't exist" way of thinking, don't just take it
for granted that everyone else deep down really accepts it as best. You
wrote "there is no human influence" because you're so comfortable with
your hopes it's eventually going to happen, that you subconsciously think
of it as already being the way things are. Get a grip on that much at least!
When you refer to what you want people to believe would happen if your
fantasies were to become reality, then at least say something like "there
would be no...", even though making the claim in a more honest way still
could never remove the fact that the claim itself is horribly dishonest...and
we BOTH know that:

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." - Dutch

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Rudy Canoza
Guest

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always, lied:

Quote:

On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:49:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as
always, lied:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:26:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied::
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:41:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:
Okay Rudy, then try to explain how you think you
disagree with yourself about this one, if you have any
clue at all.
Yes, "okay", Goober Fuckwit: you "think" the lives of livestock are morally meaningful before they occur, and that is wrong and stupid and illogical. You are a stupid fuckwit, Goober Fuckwit. You lose.
Then try to explain it Rudy.
Done, many dozens of times, Fuckwit. Go back and reread it. Waste your own time, Fuckwit - you are too stupid and talentless to waste mine.

You lose, Fuckwit. Coming into existence is not a "benefit" to farm animals, and therefore "vegans" wishing to eliminate livestock are not doing any non-existent "future farm animals" any disservice, as you stupidly and wrongly claim they are. You lose.
LOL! You dreamed it Rudy,
No. I demonstrated it conclusively, dozens of times.

Let's see some example(s)

Go back and reread them. They're there.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Rudy Canoza
Guest

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? Disregard

Fuckwit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched, lied:

Quote:

On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:52:41 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:49:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
On 17 May 2007 12:36:45 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Fuckwit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
What do you have to oppose consideration of the animals' lives?
There is no REASON to give any moral consideration to whether or not
they exist.
It is NECESSARY in order to
No. It is not necessary for anything.
Obviously not for anything you are capable of.
There is nothing of which you are capable that I am
not,
Then try to explain how lives of positive value:

One only needs to think about that if the animals
exist.

Try to explain

Nothing to explain, Fuckwit. Your entire quest is a waste.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dutch
Guest

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

<dh@.> wrote in message news:53rl53th0im7tphrdh93qpad3ubvtrp3el@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:26:17 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@.> wrote in message news:6q6e531ic4504qbk8l2fr836hiirkvrb75@4ax.com...

Their lives have as much significance as their deaths, regardless
of the fact that you have no idea how it could be the case.

Stop pushing the LoL fuckwit.

The biggest question remains: Why did you ever want to try to
persuade people to believe that you can understand something:

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental experiences)
are beneficial to animals." - Dutch

that you are admittedly not only clueless about, but you don't
even believe?

Good treatment has a positive effect on animals' lives. Animals' lives
don't
benefit the argument for consuming animal products.

Yes they do,

No they don't, good conditions for animals benefit the argument, not the
animals themselves. It does not matter to our moral status that we raise
livestock.

Quote:

by overcoming your absurd, selfish, dishonest,
totally inconsiderate insistance that we do not,

You have made that accusation at least a hundred times but you have never
supported it. Why is my view selfish?

ONLY BECAUSE

Quote:

it suggests that some alternatives could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of livestock.

Which is it fuckwit, ethically equivalent or superior? Since livestock
farming means that billions of animals experience life because humans raise
them for food then surely your view must be that livestock farming is
ethically superior to the elimination of livestock. Since this is
self-evident, then why do you always say, "ethically equivalent or superior"
instead of just "ethically superior"? Why are you mincing your words? Why
are you such a slime?

Quote:

Those animals deserve consideration if they are going to be raised by us,
whether they are raised or not is of no moral consequence at all. We would
be no more or less moral as a species if we stopped raising livestock today.
That is the essence of the moral anti-AR position that you completely miss.

Quote:

I've been wondering about that aspect for a year or more now...
When you first heard/read Charlotte's Web and it had a tremendous
impact on your thinking from that time on, what was it that slammed
you so very badly? Do you know exactly what it was in the pathetic
story that twisted you into this mess you have become?

That bad movie had nothing to do with the Logic of the Larder. I knew from
the moment I heard you utter that garbage that it was distasteful sophistry,
before I ever knew it had a name. A better question is, what started you
down this dead-end road, and how are you ever going to get back?

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dutch
Guest

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

<dh@.> wrote in message news:carl539pkq0l151c14drc99916ep3hnuv4@4ax.com...

Quote:

It's good that you find yourself entertaining, because everyone else thinks
you're a moron.

Quote:

Yes, to them, always. Nobody in possession of the most basic moral
understanding thinks that "providing life" for livestock has any moral
significance.

[..]

Quote:

They are bred and they do exist.

The only moral implication of that fact is that it obliges us to provide
those that do exist with decent lives. It does not suggest that we consider
that "they get to experience life" to be morally significant. It's not. If
we stopped hoping that livestock animals would be treated with kindness,
THAT would have profound moral significance. If we stopped raising livestock
altogether, that would have no moral significance per se, at all. You may as
well pound sand up your ass fuckwit, for all the sense you've made in the
last seven years.

<snip verbal diarrhea >

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dutch
Guest

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

<dh@.> wrote in message news:carl539pkq0l151c14drc99916ep3hnuv4@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:23:43 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:24:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:05:46 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:14:36 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
dh pointed out:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 04:31:35 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com
wrote:

[..]
There's no reason to give their lives consideration,

There is if you care anything about human influence on
animals.

That doesn't follow,

LOL! That one still gets me from time to time...lol...

there's no valid reason to give their lives
consideration.

It is necessary in order to consider all the significant
aspects
of human influence on them.

It isn't necessary at all,

It is in order to consider all the significant aspects of human
influence on them.

It's a complete red herring.

The fact you're referring to is self evident.

It's irrelevant,

Not to people in favor of decent AW.

Yes to them especially.

No, not to them ever.

Yes, to them, always. Nobody in possession of the most basic moral
understanding thinks that "providing life" for livestock has any moral
significance.

[..]

Quote:

They are bred and they do exist.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:35:05 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Quote:

dh@.> wrote in message news:53rl53th0im7tphrdh93qpad3ubvtrp3el@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:26:17 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@.> wrote in message news:6q6e531ic4504qbk8l2fr836hiirkvrb75@4ax.com...

Their lives have as much significance as their deaths, regardless
of the fact that you have no idea how it could be the case.

Stop pushing the LoL fuckwit.

The biggest question remains: Why did you ever want to try to
persuade people to believe that you can understand something:

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental experiences)
are beneficial to animals." - Dutch

that you are admittedly not only clueless about, but you don't
even believe?

Good treatment has a positive effect on animals' lives. Animals' lives
don't
benefit the argument for consuming animal products.

Yes they do,

No they don't, good conditions for animals benefit the argument, not the
animals themselves. It does not matter to our moral status that we raise
livestock.

by overcoming your absurd, selfish, dishonest,
totally inconsiderate insistance that we do not,

You have made that accusation at least a hundred times but you have never
supported it.

I certainly should have.

Quote:

Why is my view selfish?

Maybe the reason I haven't gone into it much is because it will probably
be a pain in the ass, and you definately won't get anything out of it, agree
with it, or possibly even comprehend it, but here's an attempt:

There are two general possibilities that I can consider. Number one is the
much more likely, and that is that you are an "ara". Whether you are or not,
since it's what I believe is most likely it certainly is my strongest consideration.
So the first possible reason to explain is why "aras" are selfish, and when I
say "they" I include both you and Goo as members of "they".

1. People who are disturbed that humans eat meat, like "aras" and
other supposedly ethical veg*ns, want the practice to end. They
only care about their own selfish interests in wanting something that
bothers them personally to come to an end, without any regard at all
to the fact that providing decent AW could provide lives of positive
value for billions of animals. Their thinking on the matter is as selfish
and inconsiderate as it's possible to get.

Then there's possiblity two, which is that you really are as twisted and
confused as you claim to be. That would still mean you have no better
grasp of reality than "aras"...and likely even less. To claim you support
decent AW while maniacally opposing considering those very animals'
lives is a clear indication of either honestly complete bewilderment and
ignorance, or blatant dishonesty. Since so far I still believe you're more
dishonest than you are stupid, I must NECESSARILY believe 1.

Quote:

ONLY BECAUSE
it suggests that some alternatives could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of livestock.

Which is it fuckwit, ethically equivalent or superior? Since livestock
farming means that billions of animals experience life because humans raise
them for food then surely your view must be that livestock farming is
ethically superior to the elimination of livestock. Since this is
self-evident, then why do you always say, "ethically equivalent or superior"
instead of just "ethically superior"?

To take into consideration people who would find it ethically equivalent,
but not superior. DUH!!!

Quote:

Why are you mincing your words? Why are you such a slime?

It says a lot about you that when you see me show consideration toward
others it repulses you. That's part of how I know you're incredibly selfish, btw.

Quote:

It's always the same.
You people are twisted to begin with, and then you make each
other worse by encouraging each other. Meanwhile billions of
animals experience life because humans raise them for food,
and you hypocrites who feel you are authorities on animals aren't
even capable of considering the significance of that aspect of
things for those very same animals! Just describing your position
sounds like something out of a bad sci fi story or something.

Those animals deserve consideration if they are going to be raised by us,
whether they are raised or not is of no moral consequence at all. We would
be no more or less moral as a species if we stopped raising livestock today.
That is the essence of the moral anti-AR position that you completely miss.

I've been wondering about that aspect for a year or more now...
When you first heard/read Charlotte's Web and it had a tremendous
impact on your thinking from that time on, what was it that slammed
you so very badly? Do you know exactly what it was in the pathetic
story that twisted you into this mess you have become?

That bad movie

I'm not talking about the movie, so stop trying to sneak away. When
you heard the story as a child, what about it was so horrible for you?

Quote:

When I was raising chickens there were hens who I knew were
laying fertile eggs, but I didn't want to raise any chicks from. So I
would do one of several different things to prevent them from hatching.
One day I sat down and really thought the whole thing through, and
found that I would be doing better for the chicks if I let them hatch and
then killed them in a humane way later. I have always believed that the
best days for chicks are their first weeks and months, when they get to
learn about wonders of the world, and it's the only time in their lives when
they really have close fellowship with other birds with no problems of
rivalry, and it's no doubt the only time they get to experience the warmth
and the sounds and whatever else goes along with huddling together
beneath their mother. Etc. It goes beyond that, but you'll never get that
far so there's no point going on about it except to point out that thinking
it through considering the animals themselves--not myself--is what made
it so obvious how selfish "aras" are.

Quote:

and how are you ever going to get back?

You're the one who likes to unlearn things, but after I have learned
something I like to grow from what I've learned, not try to unlearn it which
I don't believe would be possible in this case anyway.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:52:07 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Quote:

dh@.> wrote in message news:carl539pkq0l151c14drc99916ep3hnuv4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:23:43 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:24:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:05:46 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:14:36 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
dh pointed out:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 04:31:35 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com
wrote:

[..]
There's no reason to give their lives consideration,

There is if you care anything about human influence on
animals.

That doesn't follow,

LOL! That one still gets me from time to time...lol...

It's good that you find yourself entertaining

It's YOUR absurdity and ignorance I've been laughing at.

Quote:

, because everyone else thinks
you're a moron.

there's no valid reason to give their lives
consideration.

It is necessary in order to consider all the significant
aspects
of human influence on them.

It isn't necessary at all,

It is in order to consider all the significant aspects of human
influence on them.

It's a complete red herring.

The fact you're referring to is self evident.

It's irrelevant,

Not to people in favor of decent AW.

Yes to them especially.

No, not to them ever.

Yes, to them, always. Nobody in possession of the most basic moral
understanding thinks that "providing life" for livestock has any moral
significance.

You certainly put that like a devoted supporter of "ar". No one
truly in favor of providing decent AW would tell such a lie...they
would have no reason at all to do so!!!

Quote:

[..]

They are bred and they do exist.

The only moral implication of that fact is that it obliges us to provide
those that do exist with decent lives. It does not suggest that we consider
that "they get to experience life" to be morally significant. It's not.

It's undoubtedly as significant as their deaths, and very likely more.

Quote:

You either have no clue, or you're deliberately lying. Of course I believe
the latter. When you were accidentally honest in the past:

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

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." - Dutch

"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - Dutch

you gave evidence that you're not as stupid as you now pretend to
be. So you were either lying then, you're lying now, and/or you're
INCREDIBLY! stupid.

Quote:

You may as
well pound sand up your ass fuckwit, for all the sense you've made in the
last seven years.

Whether you're a liar or just stupid, either way the things I point out
would be beyond your understanding, meaning that they necessarily
must make no sense to you.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dutch
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

<dh@.> wrote in message news:ee0p53535mqbhavn603q7sm9rbapus1stj@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:35:05 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@.> wrote in message news:53rl53th0im7tphrdh93qpad3ubvtrp3el@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:26:17 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@.> wrote in message
news:6q6e531ic4504qbk8l2fr836hiirkvrb75@4ax.com...

Their lives have as much significance as their deaths, regardless
of the fact that you have no idea how it could be the case.

Stop pushing the LoL fuckwit.

Stop, now.

Quote:

The biggest question remains: Why did you ever want to try to
persuade people to believe that you can understand something:

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental experiences)
are beneficial to animals." - Dutch

that you are admittedly not only clueless about, but you don't
even believe?

Good treatment has a positive effect on animals' lives. Animals' lives
don't
benefit the argument for consuming animal products.

Yes they do,

No they don't, good conditions for animals benefit the argument, not the
animals themselves. It does not matter to our moral status that we raise
livestock.

Get it?

Quote:

by overcoming your absurd, selfish, dishonest,
totally inconsiderate insistance that we do not,

You have made that accusation at least a hundred times but you have never
supported it.

I certainly should have.

Yes, you should have, but you haven't.

Quote:

Why is my view selfish?

Maybe the reason I haven't gone into it much is because it will
probably
be a pain in the ass, and you definately won't get anything out of it,
agree
with it, or possibly even comprehend it,

No, the reason is that it's a stupid, unsupportable accusation. You say it
in a futile, flailing attempt to discredit my arguments.

but here's an attempt:

Quote:

There are two general possibilities that I can consider. Number one is the
much more likely, and that is that you are an "ara". Whether you are or
not,
since it's what I believe is most likely it certainly is my strongest
consideration.
So the first possible reason to explain is why "aras" are selfish, and
when I
say "they" I include both you and Goo as members of "they".

That is obviously absurd and can be discarded immediately.

Quote:

1. People who are disturbed that humans eat meat, like "aras" and
other supposedly ethical veg*ns, want the practice to end. They
only care about their own selfish interests in wanting something that
bothers them personally to come to an end, without any regard at all
to the fact that providing decent AW could provide lives of positive
value for billions of animals. Their thinking on the matter is as selfish
and inconsiderate as it's possible to get.

You're just re-asserting the accusation, not supporting it. WHY?

Quote:

Then there's possiblity two, which is that you really are as twisted and
confused as you claim to be. That would still mean you have no better
grasp of reality than "aras"...and likely even less. To claim you support
decent AW while maniacally opposing considering those very animals'
lives is a clear indication of either honestly complete bewilderment and
ignorance, or blatant dishonesty.

That's not an explantion, it's just confused rhetoric.

Quote:

Since so far I still believe you're more
dishonest than you are stupid, I must NECESSARILY believe 1.

That has already been discarded as a possibility. All that is left is the
obvious, you're wrong. Opposing the LoL does not indicate selfishness, it
does not indicate "ARA" leanings, it shows common sense.

Quote:

ONLY BECAUSE
it suggests that some alternatives could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of livestock.

Which is it fuckwit, ethically equivalent or superior? Since livestock
farming means that billions of animals experience life because humans
raise
them for food then surely your view must be that livestock farming is
ethically superior to the elimination of livestock. Since this is
self-evident, then why do you always say, "ethically equivalent or
superior"
instead of just "ethically superior"?

To take into consideration people who would find it ethically
equivalent,
but not superior. DUH!!!

<gag>

Quote:

Why are you mincing your words? Why are you such a slime?

It says a lot about you that when you see me show consideration toward
others it repulses you. That's part of how I know you're incredibly
selfish, btw.

Stop saying that taking credit for eating meat is "showing consideration"
fuckwit.

Quote:

It's always the same.
You people are twisted to begin with, and then you make each
other worse by encouraging each other. Meanwhile billions of
animals experience life because humans raise them for food,
and you hypocrites who feel you are authorities on animals aren't
even capable of considering the significance of that aspect of
things for those very same animals! Just describing your position
sounds like something out of a bad sci fi story or something.

Those animals deserve consideration if they are going to be raised by us,
whether they are raised or not is of no moral consequence at all. We would
be no more or less moral as a species if we stopped raising livestock
today.
That is the essence of the moral anti-AR position that you completely
miss.

I've been wondering about that aspect for a year or more now...
When you first heard/read Charlotte's Web and it had a tremendous
impact on your thinking from that time on, what was it that slammed
you so very badly? Do you know exactly what it was in the pathetic
story that twisted you into this mess you have become?

That bad movie

I'm not talking about the movie, so stop trying to sneak away. When
you heard the story as a child, what about it was so horrible for you?

I never heard the story as a child. Did you?

Quote:

had nothing to do with the Logic of the Larder. I knew from
the moment I heard you utter that garbage that it was distasteful
sophistry,
before I ever knew it had a name. A better question is, what started you
down this dead-end road,

When I was raising chickens there were hens who I knew were
laying fertile eggs, but I didn't want to raise any chicks from. So I
would do one of several different things to prevent them from hatching.
One day I sat down and really thought the whole thing through, and
found that I would be doing better for the chicks if I let them hatch and
then killed them in a humane way later. I have always believed that the
best days for chicks are their first weeks and months, when they get to
learn about wonders of the world, and it's the only time in their lives
when
they really have close fellowship with other birds with no problems of
rivalry, and it's no doubt the only time they get to experience the warmth
and the sounds and whatever else goes along with huddling together
beneath their mother. Etc. It goes beyond that, but you'll never get that
far so there's no point going on about it except to point out that
thinking
it through considering the animals themselves--not myself--is what made
it so obvious how selfish "aras" are.

ARAs are not selfish for not wanting any of that to happen, if those animals
were never conceived they would have nothing to lose.

Quote:

and how are you ever going to get back?

You're the one who likes to unlearn things, but after I have learned
something I like to grow from what I've learned, not try to unlearn it
which
I don't believe would be possible in this case anyway.

I don't believe it's possible either, you're hopeless.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dutch
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

<dh@.> wrote in message news:kq0p5390mm6vl0kqlbhv1jrt0t3bbicj0u@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:52:07 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh@.> wrote in message news:carl539pkq0l151c14drc99916ep3hnuv4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:23:43 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:24:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:05:46 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

dh pointed out:
On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:

dh pointed out:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:14:36 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com
wrote:
dh pointed out:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 04:31:35 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com
wrote:

[..]
There's no reason to give their lives consideration,

There is if you care anything about human influence on
animals.

That doesn't follow,

LOL! That one still gets me from time to time...lol...

It's good that you find yourself entertaining

It's YOUR absurdity and ignorance I've been laughing at.

You're laughing at your own reflection.

Quote:

I'm not a supporter of AR you moron, I say it because it's a fact. No
farmer, no scientist, no doctor, no ethical consumer thinks that it's
morally positive that a chicken got to experience life when they sit down to
eat dinner. The very idea is perfectly absurd.

Quote:

[..]

They are bred and they do exist.

The only moral implication of that fact is that it obliges us to provide
those that do exist with decent lives. It does not suggest that we
consider
that "they get to experience life" to be morally significant. It's not.

It's undoubtedly as significant as their deaths, and very likely more.

Wrong, it is not morally significant at all. This has been demonstrated to
you hundreds of times.

Quote:

If
we stopped hoping that livestock animals would be treated with kindness,
THAT would have profound moral significance. If we stopped raising
livestock
altogether, that would have no moral significance per se, at all.

You either have no clue, or you're deliberately lying. Of course I
believe
the latter. When you were accidentally honest in the past:

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

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." - Dutch

"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - Dutch

you gave evidence that you're not as stupid as you now pretend to
be. So you were either lying then, you're lying now, and/or you're
INCREDIBLY! stupid.

You may as
well pound sand up your ass fuckwit, for all the sense you've made in the
last seven years.

Whether you're a liar or just stupid, either way the things I point out
would be beyond your understanding, meaning that they necessarily
must make no sense to you.

You're just lost fuckwit, hopelessly and irretrievably. You are in worse
shape than 99% of the bonehead ARAs.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard?

On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:35:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Quote:

dh@.> wrote in message news:ee0p53535mqbhavn603q7sm9rbapus1stj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:35:05 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

Why is my view selfish?

Maybe the reason I haven't gone into it much is because it will
probably
be a pain in the ass, and you definately won't get anything out of it,
agree
with it, or possibly even comprehend it,

No,

Yes. I correctly predicted all of it.

Quote:

the reason is that it's a stupid, unsupportable accusation. You say it
in a futile, flailing attempt to discredit my arguments.

I tell you what you have caused me to believe about your incredible
selfishness and lack of consideration.

Quote:

but here's an attempt:

There are two general possibilities that I can consider. Number one is the
much more likely, and that is that you are an "ara". Whether you are or
not,
since it's what I believe is most likely it certainly is my strongest
consideration.
So the first possible reason to explain is why "aras" are selfish, and
when I
say "they" I include both you and Goo as members of "they".

That is obviously absurd

I consider you and the Goober to be dishonest "aras", because
I don't believe you are stupid enough to act like you do if you're not.

Quote:

and can be discarded immediately.

1. People who are disturbed that humans eat meat, like "aras" and
other supposedly ethical veg*ns, want the practice to end. They
only care about their own selfish interests in wanting something that
bothers them personally to come to an end, without any regard at all
to the fact that providing decent AW could provide lives of positive
value for billions of animals. Their thinking on the matter is as selfish
and inconsiderate as it's possible to get.

You're just re-asserting the accusation, not supporting it. WHY?

Pointing out that they only care about themselves does support it.

Quote:

Yes it is, you just don't want to see it pointed out. Duh!

Quote:

it's just confused rhetoric.

Since so far I still believe you're more
dishonest than you are stupid, I must NECESSARILY believe 1.

That has already been discarded as a possibility.

Not at all.

Quote:

All that is left is the obvious, you're wrong.

No. There still remains either you are lying, or incredibly stupid.

Quote:

Opposing the LoL does not indicate selfishness,

Opposing consideration for the animals PROVES your selfishness.

Quote:

it does not indicate "ARA" leanings, it shows common sense.

ONLY BECAUSE
it suggests that some alternatives could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of livestock.

Which is it fuckwit, ethically equivalent or superior? Since livestock
farming means that billions of animals experience life because humans
raise
them for food then surely your view must be that livestock farming is
ethically superior to the elimination of livestock. Since this is
self-evident, then why do you always say, "ethically equivalent or
superior"
instead of just "ethically superior"?

To take into consideration people who would find it ethically
equivalent,
but not superior. DUH!!!

gag

Why are you mincing your words? Why are you such a slime?

It says a lot about you that when you see me show consideration toward
others it repulses you. That's part of how I know you're incredibly
selfish, btw.

Stop saying that taking credit for eating meat is "showing consideration"
fuckwit.

I point out that showing consideration shows consideration which
you don't have:

"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch