| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
 |
|
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:41:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
dh@.> wrote in message news:kq0p5390mm6vl0kqlbhv1jrt0t3bbicj0u@4ax.com...
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.
, 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!!!
I'm not a supporter of AR you moron,
|
That means about as much to me as it would if you said you are
a kangaroo...it just means you said it and nothing more.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Do any of them think that it was positive *for the bird if* it had a decent
life? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when considering
human influence on animals:
1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by hunters
2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
3d 6 week old pheasants killed by hunters
4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain
| Quote: |
The very idea is perfectly absurd.
|
We'll see how much of an authority you are on this by how
well or badly you do with the above questions.
| 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.
|
It never has and it never will. You're in an even worse position than
that actually. By claiming that you believe it's okay to eat animals, but
not okay to consider what they get out of the arrangement, you are
saying it's morally superior to be completely inconsiderate of their interests,
yet you can't even begin to try explaining how that could possibly be the
case.
| 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dutch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:01 am Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote in message news:l2jr531c0cnfdrgk68etk4asatih192j26@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:35:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
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.
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.
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.
|
That is also obviously absurd. People do not invest years and hundreds of
hours of their time opposing something that they secretly support. The idea
is beyond laughable.
| 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.
|
First of all, I asked you support your contention that *I* am being selfish,
you didn't. But primarily, wanting livestock farming to end cannot be seen
as selfish for the reason you're stating. That's the circular argument I
have been talking about. If we didn't farm livestock they would never be
conceived, never exist, we cannot give moral weight to the theoretical lives
that they would have had if we had acted differently. Morals and ethics
don't work that way. How many children have you had? Should you be judged
whatever that number is based on the fact that it is not higher?
| 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,
Yes it is, you just don't want to see it pointed out. Duh!
|
No, it's not an explanation, you haven't told me to whom I am being
inconsiderate.
| 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.
|
Yes, utterly. You just don't get it.
| Quote: |
All that is left is the obvious, you're wrong.
No. There still remains either you are lying, or incredibly stupid.
Opposing the LoL does not indicate selfishness,
Opposing consideration for the animals PROVES your selfishness.
|
No it doesn't. If you raised sex-slave children and were charged with a
crime for it, you would be laughed out of court if you demanded that the
court "consider the children", if not lynched on the spot. We're judged on
how we act towards other beings, not on "their lives". On that score,
raising livestock humanely can be viewed as a moral act
And don't bother going off on a rant, the analogy is perfectly apt. We
"bring a being into existence" in both cases for a specific reason, and in
both cases we are being accused of wrongdoing against that being.
| 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:
|
Stop saying that taking credit for eating meat is "showing consideration"
fuckwit.
| Quote: |
"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch
|
Why don't you answer that question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dutch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote
| Quote: |
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:41:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
|
[..]
| Quote: |
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!!!
I'm not a supporter of AR you moron,
That means about as much to me as it would if you said you are
a kangaroo...it just means you said it and nothing more.
|
That's because you're a moron.
| Quote: |
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.
Do any of them think that it was positive *for the bird if* it had a
decent
life?
|
Of course, relative to a life of suffering, not relative to never having
been conceived.
| Quote: |
It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when considering
human influence on animals:
1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by hunters
2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
3d 6 week old pheasants killed by hunters
4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain
The very idea is perfectly absurd.
We'll see how much of an authority you are on this by how
well or badly you do with the above questions.
|
The questions are stupid fuckwit. There is no moral content to animals
killing other animals, animals are not moral actors.
| 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.
It never has and it never will.
|
Yes it has, but being a stubborn duffus, you refuse to listen.
| Quote: |
You're in an even worse position than
that actually. By claiming that you believe it's okay to eat animals, but
not okay to consider what they get out of the arrangement, you are
saying it's morally superior to be completely inconsiderate of their
interests,
yet you can't even begin to try explaining how that could possibly be the
case.
|
That was completely false. *IF* we raise animals then we *MUST* consider
their treatment, the conditions of their lives. However choosing to never
raise animals is a perfectly moral option. It's absurd to state that it is
morally significant that by doing so we are somehow denying life to some
imaginary theoretical animals.
| 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On May 30, 1:01 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
dh@.> wrote in messagenews:l2jr531c0cnfdrgk68etk4asatih192j26@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:35:15 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in messagenews:ee0p53535mqbhavn603q7sm9rbapus1stj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:35:05 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@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.
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.
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 Rudy as members of "they".
That is obviously absurd
I consider you and Rudy to be dishonest "aras", because
I don't believe you are stupid enough to act like you do if you're not.
That is also obviously absurd. People do not invest years and hundreds of
hours of their time opposing something that they secretly support. The idea
is beyond laughable.
|
Of all the crazy, fuckwitted things that hopelessly overmatched
Fuckwit David Harrison believes, that one is the most bizarre, without
question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: Considering human influence on animals |
|
|
For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting that
we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
considering human influence on animals:
1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters
2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
3d 6 week old pheasants killed by human hunters
4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:18:22 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
dh@.> wrote in message news:u03u53hp674ele2vqnnr5h1kd390575teh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:01:54 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message news:l2jr531c0cnfdrgk68etk4asatih192j26@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:35:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
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.
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.
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.
That is also obviously absurd. People do not invest years and hundreds of
hours of their time opposing something that they secretly support.
Let's see some example(s) of your opposition to "ar". Let's see some
of the Goober's. NOW!!!
They are all in the archives
|
Wrong.
.. . .
| Quote: |
You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior to be
completely inconsiderate of the animals lives, than it is to take them
into consideration. Try to explain.
The LoL introduces a fundamental moral conflict of interest. Breeding
animals for food and other products to benefit our lives disqualifies us
from claiming moral credit for their lives. It has nothing to do with being
"considerate"
|
Being considerate requires consideration. You are amazingly
and amusingly so completely selfish that you can't understand,
as I've been pointing out for years. Proof of your incredible
selfishness is in the fact that you can't understand.
.. . .
| Quote: |
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,
Yes it is, you just don't want to see it pointed out. Duh!
No, it's not an explanation, you haven't told me to whom I am being
inconsiderate.
Why don't you answer it yourself?
Why are you evading the question?
|
You claim to be too stupid to understand the answer, so I'm
encouraging you to figure out as much of it as you can for
yourself because that would be the only way you could ever
get any hint at all.
| Quote: |
You go on and on and on about
"consideration" then run for the hills when asked to explain it. Give me an
example of one actual animal that I am being "inconsiderate" towards.
|
Up until now you've claimed to be inconsiderate towards every
one of them. If all of a suddent you want to change your claim
and say that you are now considerate of some of them, you need
to say which ones and why you have finally learned to give some
consideration to.
| Quote: |
To whom were you referring:
"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch
when you referred to failing to give any consideration?
To a livestock animal I suppose, you should know, it's your claim.
|
LOL. It was YOUR claim, you poor, poor fool. You really are lost
....lost in your own mind, and such a tiny mind at that. Incredible!
| Quote: |
Now answer it, this "consideration" that you claim that you give and other
people don't, how does it benefit an animal? Give me an example of one
animal that derives a benefit from it.
|
Cage free eggs are available because people are willing to pay
extra money to support cage free lives for laying hens. It's more
of that sort of thing that you "aras" are correctly worried about
seeing happen if people in general develop more interest in the
lives of livestock animals, as I've been pointing out for years
and years. And again I'll post a quote of your "ar" heros pointing
out that exact same thing:
_________________________________________________________
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
You oppose what I suggest because not only would it "retard the
pace at which animal rights goals are achieved", but it would put
an end to your hopes of ever reaching those goals while exposing
your elimination objective as the selfish misnomered hoax that it
actually is. DUH!!! You are correctly worried that instead of seeing
veganism as the most ethical possible approach, instead providing
decent lives and humane deaths for billions of livestock would be
considered superior, making free range and reduced cruelty
products popular and abundant, instead of rare and expensive.
You are horrified at the idea that animal friendly animals products
would become far more popular than veganism ever could be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:54:32 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
dh@.> wrote in message news:gs3u53dg43dctv34cr71ark6qdh20rsnns@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:10:21 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:41:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
[..]
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!!!
I'm not a supporter of AR you moron,
That means about as much to me as it would if you said you are
a kangaroo...it just means you said it and nothing more.
That's because you're a 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.
Do any of them think that it was positive *for the bird if* it had a
decent life?
Of course, relative to a life of suffering, not relative to never having
been conceived.
Why not both?
Because, for the umpteenth time, the comparion between existence and
non-existence is illogical and therefore invalid.
|
Your hero the Goober does it:
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
them better off than before they existed." - Goo
| Quote: |
It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
considering
human influence on animals:
1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by hunters
2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
3d 6 week old pheasants killed by hunters
4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain
The very idea is perfectly absurd.
We'll see how much of an authority you are on this by how
well or badly you do with the above questions.
The questions are stupid fuckwit.
You are stupid doutche. You failed even more miserably
and completely than I expected you to, and I knew you
would fail.
Morons do not get to give their superiors moronic little exams.
|
You have failed this very easy quiz completely and absolutely
*because* you are completely clueless. LOL...you couldn't
answer a single question correctly...LOL...not a single one
out of 26!
| Quote: |
There is no moral content to animals
killing other animals,
For one thing there is more than just animals killing other
animals,
The inclusion of animals killing other animals or animals dying by natural
causes completely invalidates your moronic little exam.
|
It's a part of it, to show that you can't distinguish between
any of it. The whole thing was to show how absolutely
clueless you are, and your reaction to it proved that beyond
any doubt.
| Quote: |
and for another thing we are considering their lives,
not their deaths.
Every point refers to animals being killed.
|
The question remains the same in all cases, and you
have proven to have no idea in a single one of them.
| Quote: |
You are absolutely clueless about any of
this, as you have certainly proven beyond question this time.
You should have your brain repossessed for lack of use.
|
That childish reaction again proves your cluelessness.
You are totally bewildered, and your bewilderment shames
you and rightly so. Your shame makes you defensive, so
you lash out at he who exposes it.
| Quote: |
animals are not moral actors.
[..]
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.
It never has and it never will.
Yes it has, but being a stubborn duffus, you refuse to listen.
You're in an even worse position than
that actually. By claiming that you believe it's okay to eat animals,
but
not okay to consider what they get out of the arrangement, you are
saying it's morally superior to be completely inconsiderate of their
interests,
yet you can't even begin to try explaining how that could possibly be
the
case.
That was completely false. *IF* we raise animals then we *MUST* consider
their treatment, the conditions of their lives.
The conditions of their lives ARE THEIR LIVES, but you can't
even get that far. You are bewildered by the fact itself, no doubt
foolishly believing it's some sort of "equivocation" in your clueless,
pitiful confusion. You really can't grasp any of this, which apparently
frustrates you horribly.
I suppose that little speech is like a therapy for morons. I hope it made
you feel better.
|
Since your lack of understanding makes your supposed arguments
absolutely useless, just about the only thing I get out of this is the
fun of pointing out when you're lying and how clueless you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
On Mon, 28 May 2007 dh again challenged Goo:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:52:41 GMT, Goo wrote:
dh challenged a completely inept Goober:
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.
|
Goober! Show that you have some clue what you
thought you were trying to talk about, or it will be
understood that AGAIN you do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: Considering human influence on animals |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Well?@how'boutit.com> wrote
For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting that
we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
considering human influence on animals:
What do you mean by "consider"?
|
Take into consideration, especially when giving thought to human
influence on animals.
You need to be more capable. You can't do it at all so you claim,
though you also claim to have been able to in the past. You obviously
never could, but there is some slight chance that you truly believed
that you could at one time. This unlearning crap you think you have
going on is so stupid that it really is funny, btw. Did you know that,
or do you think it's cool for some reason?
| Quote: |
1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters
2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
3d 6 week old pheasants killed by human hunters
4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: Considering human influence on animals |
|
|
On 31 May 2007 13:10:42 -0700, Goo wrote:
| Quote: |
Fuckwit David Harrison, clumsily and ineptly trying to disguise
himself, blabbered:
For years "aras" have been insisting that
Fuck off, Fuckwit.
|
You too Goo.
| Quote: |
Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock,
|
You have yet to even address that Goob. All you have
"done"--for whatever absurd reason you've done it--is
explain why entities coming into existence, is not a benefit
for your imaginary pre-existent "entities". You have given
no one else reason to consider your imagined pre-existent
fantasy beings, you Gooby little Goo.
| Quote: |
Fuckwit, and
preventing any future livestock would not be doing anything "to" non-
existent entities.
|
You feel that your imagined "entities" would be better off
not ever existing Goobs...at first you admitted that you didn't
know:
"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might
provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
state was for the animals" - Goo
but now you're insisting that you somehow know that they
were better off in you supposed "pre-existence state". Why
should anyone believe that along with you, Goo? You claimed
you can explain, so try too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dutch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote in message news:i293631cpcgs6te3aneh3stooe6hob5dah@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:18:22 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message news:u03u53hp674ele2vqnnr5h1kd390575teh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:01:54 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message
news:l2jr531c0cnfdrgk68etk4asatih192j26@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:35:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
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.
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.
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.
That is also obviously absurd. People do not invest years and hundreds
of
hours of their time opposing something that they secretly support.
Let's see some example(s) of your opposition to "ar". Let's see some
of the Goober's. NOW!!!
They are all in the archives
Wrong.
|
How do you gifure?
| Quote: |
You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior to be
completely inconsiderate of the animals lives, than it is to take them
into consideration. Try to explain.
The LoL introduces a fundamental moral conflict of interest. Breeding
animals for food and other products to benefit our lives disqualifies us
from claiming moral credit for their lives. It has nothing to do with
being
"considerate"
Being considerate requires consideration. You are amazingly
and amusingly so completely selfish that you can't understand,
as I've been pointing out for years. Proof of your incredible
selfishness is in the fact that you can't understand.
|
"Being considerate" requires more than mere consideration, it means doing
something positive to benefit that being to which your consideration is
directed. You're equivocating again. The Logic of the Larder does not do
anything at all to benefit to object of it's consideration.
| Quote: |
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,
Yes it is, you just don't want to see it pointed out. Duh!
No, it's not an explanation, you haven't told me to whom I am being
inconsiderate.
Why don't you answer it yourself?
Why are you evading the question?
You claim to be too stupid to understand the answer, so I'm
encouraging you to figure out as much of it as you can for
yourself because that would be the only way you could ever
get any hint at all.
|
You're still evading the question. You always will, because the answer is he
accusation is hollow, it's based on the equivocation I referred to above.
The Logic of the Larder does nothing to benefit the object of it's
consideration, therefore witholding it is not selfish.
| Quote: |
You go on and on and on about
"consideration" then run for the hills when asked to explain it. Give me
an
example of one actual animal that I am being "inconsiderate" towards.
Up until now you've claimed to be inconsiderate towards every
one of them. If all of a suddent you want to change your claim
and say that you are now considerate of some of them, you need
to say which ones and why you have finally learned to give some
consideration to.
|
Being inconsiderate implies causing some kind of harm or deprivation, what
harm am I causing by my lack of "consideration"?
| Quote: |
To whom were you referring:
"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch
when you referred to failing to give any consideration?
To a livestock animal I suppose, you should know, it's your claim.
LOL. It was YOUR claim, you poor, poor fool. You really are lost
...lost in your own mind, and such a tiny mind at that. Incredible!
|
No, it's your claim that I am being inconsiderate to animals, thereby
implying that I am causing some animals harm of some kind. Please tell me
which animals you are referring to and what harm exactly I am causing them.
| Quote: |
Now answer it, this "consideration" that you claim that you give and other
people don't, how does it benefit an animal? Give me an example of one
animal that derives a benefit from it.
Cage free eggs are available because people are willing to pay
extra money to support cage free lives for laying hens.
|
That's consideration of the conditions under which animals live, not of
their lives per se. I have always agreed that we ought to consider how
livestock live.
| Quote: |
It's more
of that sort of thing that you "aras" are correctly worried about
seeing happen
|
ARAs are some of the strongests advocates of those kinds of changes
| Quote: |
if people in general develop more interest in the
lives of livestock animals, as I've been pointing out for years
and years.
|
ARAs demonstrate more interest in the lives of livestock animals than most
people. They also want livestock species to be eliminated. Those are two
separate and non-contradictory agendas. Everybody but you can see this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dutch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: Re: Whose opinion to respect? Whose to disregard? |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5s936396ee5q05b9dik22cki2bh48qqouh@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:54:32 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote in message news:gs3u53dg43dctv34cr71ark6qdh20rsnns@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:10:21 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
dh@.> wrote
On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:41:15 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
[..]
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!!!
I'm not a supporter of AR you moron,
That means about as much to me as it would if you said you are
a kangaroo...it just means you said it and nothing more.
That's because you're a 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.
Do any of them think that it was positive *for the bird if* it had
a
decent life?
Of course, relative to a life of suffering, not relative to never having
been conceived.
Why not both?
Because, for the umpteenth time, the comparion between existence and
non-existence is illogical and therefore invalid.
Your hero the Goober does it:
"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
them better off than before they existed." - Goo
|
That sentence says that the comparison is invalid.
| Quote: |
It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
considering
human influence on animals:
1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by hunters
2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
3d 6 week old pheasants killed by hunters
4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain
The very idea is perfectly absurd.
We'll see how much of an authority you are on this by how
well or badly you do with the above questions.
The questions are stupid fuckwit.
You are stupid doutche. You failed even more miserably
and completely than I expected you to, and I knew you
would fail.
Morons do not get to give their superiors moronic little exams.
You have failed this very easy quiz completely and absolutely
*because* you are completely clueless. LOL...you couldn't
answer a single question correctly...LOL...not a single one
out of 26!
|
I don't do moronic little exams created by moronic little pea-brained
people.
| Quote: |
There is no moral content to animals
killing other animals,
For one thing there is more than just animals killing other
animals,
The inclusion of animals killing other animals or animals dying by natural
causes completely invalidates your moronic little exam.
It's a part of it, to show that you can't distinguish between
any of it. The whole thing was to show how absolutely
clueless you are, and your reaction to it proved that beyond
any doubt.
|
Your little exam is asinine.
| Quote: |
and for another thing we are considering their lives,
not their deaths.
Every point refers to animals being killed.
The question remains the same in all cases, and you
have proven to have no idea in a single one of them.
|
You have just proved yourself a liar, again.
| Quote: |
You are absolutely clueless about any of
this, as you have certainly proven beyond question this time.
You should have your brain repossessed for lack of use.
That childish reaction again proves your cluelessness.
You are totally bewildered, and your bewilderment shames
you and rightly so. Your shame makes you defensive, so
you lash out at he who exposes it.
|
You're an idiot.
| Quote: |
animals are not moral actors.
[..]
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.
It never has and it never will.
Yes it has, but being a stubborn duffus, you refuse to listen.
You're in an even worse position than
that actually. By claiming that you believe it's okay to eat animals,
but
not okay to consider what they get out of the arrangement, you are
saying it's morally superior to be completely inconsiderate of their
interests,
yet you can't even begin to try explaining how that could possibly be
the
case.
That was completely false. *IF* we raise animals then we *MUST* consider
their treatment, the conditions of their lives.
The conditions of their lives ARE THEIR LIVES, but you can't
even get that far. You are bewildered by the fact itself, no doubt
foolishly believing it's some sort of "equivocation" in your clueless,
pitiful confusion. You really can't grasp any of this, which apparently
frustrates you horribly.
I suppose that little speech is like a therapy for morons. I hope it made
you feel better.
Since your lack of understanding makes your supposed arguments
absolutely useless, just about the only thing I get out of this is the
fun of pointing out when you're lying and how clueless you are.
|
The only thing I don't really get is how you can be such an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dutch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: Re: Considering human influence on animals |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote in message news:6lb363h42sh5a6uq43qh8orgq53m0nj8o1@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
Well?@how'boutit.com> wrote
For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting
that
we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
considering human influence on animals:
What do you mean by "consider"?
Take into consideration, especially when giving thought to human
influence on animals.
|
Taking into consideration is not the same as "being considerate". So you're
not referring to the phrase "being considerate"?
| Quote: |
Be more explicit.
You need to be more capable. You can't do it at all so you claim,
though you also claim to have been able to in the past. You obviously
never could, but there is some slight chance that you truly believed
that you could at one time. This unlearning crap you think you have
going on is so stupid that it really is funny, btw. Did you know that,
or do you think it's cool for some reason?
|
I don't find it funny or cool that you think that transparent equivocations
like the one above is convincing, I find it pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: Re: Considering human influence on animals |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
Well?@how'boutit.com> wrote
For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting that
we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
considering human influence on animals:
What do you mean by "consider"?
Take into consideration,
|
Circular; bullshit. Dismissed.
| Quote: |
Be more explicit.
You need to be more capable.
|
Evasion noted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Considering human influence on animals |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
