Vegetarian Discussion: Reality

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-06 13:10:45 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, aka "Bumper", the stupid cracker of
Alpharetta, GA - likes to lie and say he's "considering" the way animals
benefit from existence. He is not. Goo - "Bumper" - only considers the
products he obtains from farm animals; nothing about their lives.

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo. It is
not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
than never existing. Goo. That's just reality.

Rupert
2008-10-06 20:38:58 EST
On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, aka "Bumper", the stupid cracker of
> Alpharetta, GA - likes to lie and say he's "considering" the way animals
> benefit from existence.  He is not.  Goo - "Bumper" - only considers the
> products he obtains from farm animals; nothing about their lives.
>
> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo.  It is
> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
> than never existing.  Goo.  That's just reality.

Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
David Harrison to change his position? Do you think anyone else cares?

What's the point?

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-06 22:39:42 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, aka "Bumper", the stupid cracker of
>> Alpharetta, GA - likes to lie and say he's "considering" the way animals
>> benefit from existence. He is not. Goo - "Bumper" - only considers the
>> products he obtains from farm animals; nothing about their lives.
>>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo. It is
>> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
>> than never existing. Goo. That's just reality.
>
> Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
> David Harrison to change his position? Do you think anyone else cares?
>
> What's the point?

I heard you were dead.

D*@.
2008-10-07 11:54:24 EST
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Goo wrote:
>
>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo.  It is
>> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
>> than never existing.  Goo.  That's just reality.
>
>Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
>David Harrison to change his position?

We both know some livestock benefit from lives of positive value.
The Goos know it too.

>Do you think anyone else cares?

They're opposed to it becoming appreciated because it works
against the misnomer.

>What's the point?

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Rupert
2008-10-07 20:27:33 EST
On Oct 7, 11:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Goo wrote:
>
> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo.  It is
> >> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
> >> than never existing.  Goo.  That's just reality.
>
> >Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
> >David Harrison to change his position?
>
>     We both know some livestock benefit from lives of positive value.
> The Goos know it too.
>

It seems to me that what Ball is trying to say is that when you bring
a farm animal into existence you cannot be said to be conferring a
benefit on that animal because you cannot be said to be conferring a
benefit on an individual unless that individual exists prior to your
conferring the benefit. And, you know, I'd say Ball's right on this
one. It's not every day Ball and I agree on something, but I think
he's not a million miles off the mark here.

I've said some stuff about the outcome being better for one more happy
animal existing which Ball doesn't like.

However, I don't think that, just because you have made the outcome
better by bringing one more happy animal into existence (and here I'm
ignoring the point that if no farm animals were brought into existence
then wild animals would fill the ecological niches that were thereby
freed up), you're then entitled to do whatever you want to it so long
as it remains the case that the outcome is better for the animal
existing. I think there are some constraints on how you may treat it
over and above that, and I think those constraints might be strong
enough that most of the animal farming we currently engage in is not
morally justifiable. Indeed, I'd even go so far as to say that most of
the animal farming that goes on at the moment is such that the outcome
is *not* better for the animals farmed being brought into existence,
because their lives are so bloody miserable.

Now, it's true that I financially support plant-based agriculture (and
just so Ball won't burst a blood vessel I'll do my best to make it
absolutely clear what I'm doing; I'm voluntarily and repeatedly buying
food products whose production entailed animal slaughter) and so I
guess consistency requires me to say that maybe some forms of animal
farming might be morally justifiable. Unless I want to say that what
I'm doing is morally wrong. Derek thinks I've got it wrong here, but
Derek thinks I don't deserve the privilege of him bothering to try to
have a serious discussion about ethics with me because I have a
history of psychosis, so he won't deign to explain to me how I've got
it wrong. Isn't Derek a funny old chap. So, consistency requires me to
say that the constraints are not so extensive as to rule out all
conceivable forms of animal farming, but nevertheless I support the
goal of the abolition of the property status of nonhumans as the best
strategy to protect animals from abuse and I allow the pursuit of that
goal to guide my practice. I guess you won't be overjoyed to hear
that.

So that's where I stand. Maybe someone will understand it this time.
Ball will say it's all an incoherent slop, but I guess I'm not
convinced that he's shown how his own position is more coherent,
whatever it is.

Anyway. How's your day going?

I'm quite enjoying giving my lectures at the moment.

> >Do you think anyone else cares?
>
>     They're opposed to it becoming appreciated because it works
> against the misnomer.
>
> >What's the point?
>
> All truth passes through three stages:
> First, it is ridiculed;
> Second, it is violently opposed; and
> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


Rupert
2008-10-07 20:32:05 EST
On Oct 7, 10:39 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, aka "Bumper", the stupid cracker of
> >> Alpharetta, GA - likes to lie and say he's "considering" the way animals
> >> benefit from existence.  He is not.  Goo - "Bumper" - only considers the
> >> products he obtains from farm animals; nothing about their lives.
>
> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo.  It is
> >> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
> >> than never existing.  Goo.  That's just reality.
>
> > Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
> > David Harrison to change his position? Do you think anyone else cares?
>
> > What's the point?
>
> I heard you were dead.

Just got bored. I took your advice and decided to get serious, started
studying Lie groups and buildings, and working on generalising the
results of my thesis to the infinite-dimensional case, at my co-
worker's suggestion.

Hey, Ball, I've got a question for you.

You know how we speak of battery cage and free-range egg production?
And you know how it's widely believed that, while there are some
welfare problems with free-range egg production, they're considerably
less than those with battery cage egg production, and some even go so
far as to say that the least consumers can do if they're going to eat
eggs at all is to spend the tiny amount of extra money on free-range
eggs? Quite a few people I know go so far as to say that despite not
being animal rights people at all. And when we get out onto the street
and talk about it everyone says "Oh yes, I buy free-range". The sales
figures for battery cage eggs would suggest that some of them are not
quite telling the truth, but it would appear that quite a lot of them
feel embarassed about buying battery cage eggs, they don't think it's
quite kosher. So that's one position anyway.

I was just wondering where you stand on that. Do you have the view
that there's a moral obligation to boycott battery cage eggs?

You've said that you think there are some constraints on how we may
treat nonhuman animals, and I'm just trying to get a bit more of a
handle on exactly what you think those constraints are.

D*@.
2008-10-08 09:07:48 EST
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:32:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 7, 10:39 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> > On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, aka "Bumper", the stupid cracker of
>> >> Alpharetta, GA - likes to lie and say he's "considering" the way animals
>> >> benefit from existence.  He is not.  Goo - "Bumper" - only considers the
>> >> products he obtains from farm animals; nothing about their lives.
>>
>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo.  It is
>> >> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
>> >> than never existing.  Goo.  That's just reality.
>>
>> > Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
>> > David Harrison to change his position? Do you think anyone else cares?
>>
>> > What's the point?
>>
>> I heard you were dead.
>
>Just got bored. I took your advice and decided to get serious, started
>studying Lie groups and buildings, and working on generalising the
>results of my thesis to the infinite-dimensional case, at my co-
>worker's suggestion.
>
>Hey, Ball, I've got a question for you.
>
>You know how we speak of battery cage and free-range egg production?
>And you know how it's widely believed that, while there are some
>welfare problems with free-range egg production, they're considerably
>less than those with battery cage egg production, and some even go so
>far as to say that the least consumers can do if they're going to eat
>eggs at all is to spend the tiny amount of extra money on free-range
>eggs? Quite a few people I know go so far as to say that despite not
>being animal rights people at all.

People who are in favor of decent AW are more than likely to be
both in favor of cage free egg production and opposed to the
misnomer.

>And when we get out onto the street
>and talk about it everyone says "Oh yes, I buy free-range". The sales
>figures for battery cage eggs would suggest that some of them are not
>quite telling the truth, but it would appear that quite a lot of them
>feel embarassed about buying battery cage eggs,

People should feel ashamed to buy battery eggs when cage free
are as easily available and not too much more expensive.

>they don't think it's
>quite kosher. So that's one position anyway.
>
>I was just wondering where you stand on that. Do you have the view
>that there's a moral obligation to boycott battery cage eggs?
>
>You've said that you think there are some constraints on how we may
>treat nonhuman animals, and I'm just trying to get a bit more of a
>handle on exactly what you think those constraints are.

"It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to
merit consideration." - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

D*@.
2008-10-08 09:31:27 EST
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:27:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 7, 11:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo.  It is
>> >> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
>> >> than never existing.  Goo.  That's just reality.
>>
>> >Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
>> >David Harrison to change his position?
>>
>>     We both know some livestock benefit from lives of positive value.
>> The Goos know it too.
>>
>
>It seems to me that what Ball is trying to say is that when you bring
>a farm animal into existence you cannot be said to be conferring a
>benefit on that animal because you cannot be said to be conferring a
>benefit on an individual unless that individual exists prior to your
>conferring the benefit. And, you know, I'd say Ball's right on this
>one. It's not every day Ball and I agree on something, but I think
>he's not a million miles off the mark here.

All evidence suggests that beings do benefit from lives of positive
value regardless of anything to do with their pre-existence. If you
think something to do with our pre-existence prevents us from benefitting
from our lives, then try explaining *exactly* what it is so people can try
putting together exactly what it is you and Goo think you're trying to
talk about. So far we have seen nothing that would suggest pre-existence
somehow prevents all beings from benefitting from their lives and I seriously
doubt we ever will, but if you think you can present it then please do. You're
the math guy, so have at it. If it turns out the Goober is wrong then don't
take it too hard yourself, just re-adjust your thinking to accept the truth
and have fun pointing out how stupid Goo is for not doing the same.

>I've said some stuff about the outcome being better for one more happy
>animal existing which Ball doesn't like.

He hates that because it favors decent AW over the misnomer.

>However, I don't think that, just because you have made the outcome
>better by bringing one more happy animal into existence (and here I'm
>ignoring the point that if no farm animals were brought into existence
>then wild animals would fill the ecological niches that were thereby
>freed up),

We have no reason to believe that either. We have reason to
believe the land will be sold for commercial or residential areas
if it becomes illegal to raise livestock on it, but no reason to believe
people will let it sit there and do nothing but provide a place where
a bit of wildlife can hang out.

>you're then entitled to do whatever you want to it so long
>as it remains the case that the outcome is better for the animal
>existing. I think there are some constraints on how you may treat it
>over and above that, and I think those constraints might be strong
>enough that most of the animal farming we currently engage in is not
>morally justifiable. Indeed, I'd even go so far as to say that most of
>the animal farming that goes on at the moment is such that the outcome
>is *not* better for the animals farmed being brought into existence,
>because their lives are so bloody miserable.

From my own experience I disagree with that except in extreme
cases like battery cages and gestation crates for sows, the latter
of which I have had no personal experience around. Farrowing
crates are worth the frustration caused to the sow because of the
benefits they provide for the pigs, and I have personally seen pigs
killed and horribly wounded by their mothers when they were not
restricted. It doesn't hurt baby chicks when their very much larger
mother steps on them, but it's completely different when a sow
steps on her pigs.

>Now, it's true that I financially support plant-based agriculture (and
>just so Ball won't burst a blood vessel I'll do my best to make it
>absolutely clear what I'm doing; I'm voluntarily and repeatedly buying
>food products whose production entailed animal slaughter) and so I
>guess consistency requires me to say that maybe some forms of animal
>farming might be morally justifiable.

As much so as all the ways vegans contribute to the deaths of
animals that most other people contribute to, which is pretty much
all except those which provide life for livestock.

>Unless I want to say that what
>I'm doing is morally wrong. Derek thinks I've got it wrong here, but
>Derek thinks I don't deserve the privilege of him bothering to try to
>have a serious discussion about ethics with me because I have a
>history of psychosis, so he won't deign to explain to me how I've got
>it wrong. Isn't Derek a funny old chap.

When people say cowardly cop-out things like that it's because
they have no good argument against what you're saying, otherwise
they would present them instead of their cowardly cop-out. Presenting
a good argument is what people want to do, and it's only when they
don't have one that they stoop to the cowardly lying and personal
insults like the Goos do. Think how even more stupid 2goo would be
if he really *does* have a good argument but he just won't present it
because of the extremely stupid reason he copped out with. LOL. He
tried the same dishonest cowardly trick my way he says because
I drink beer. The truth is that he's lying again which is pretty stupid,
and it would be even MORE stupid if he was actually telling the truth.

>So, consistency requires me to
>say that the constraints are not so extensive as to rule out all
>conceivable forms of animal farming,

That is a big step but so far it appears to be the only one you
want to take, and even though it is a big step it can't get you
very far.

>but nevertheless I support the
>goal of the abolition of the property status of nonhumans as the best
>strategy to protect animals from abuse and I allow the pursuit of that
>goal to guide my practice. I guess you won't be overjoyed to hear
>that.

No because I believe it could offer the animals less protection,
not more. The laws set up to help the animals and how they are
enforced are what matter imo, and relieving people from the obligations
of ownership can and I believe often would work against the interests
of the animals as much or more than they would help them. If that's
true then things might swing back around to an ownership situation
along with the obligations again eventually, but there would probably
be a lot of suffering caused by people taking advantage of the changes
and "stealing" animals before things worked back around again.

>So that's where I stand. Maybe someone will understand it this time.

I believe I understand it, but only agree with parts of it.

>Ball will say it's all an incoherent slop, but I guess I'm not
>convinced that he's shown how his own position is more coherent,
>whatever it is.

Goo is very critical of everyone else, but has never once that
I'm aware of suggested anything of value, or that he even thinks
is of value, himself. What Derek suggests is so extreme that if you
move away from the position even a little bit you become an
opponent, which is why he's all pissy with you.

>Anyway. How's your day going?

Pretty well so far. I hope yours is also.

>I'm quite enjoying giving my lectures at the moment.

What are you enjoying trying to get people to believe?

>> >Do you think anyone else cares?
>>
>>     They're opposed to it becoming appreciated because it works
>> against the misnomer.
>>
>> >What's the point?
>>
>> All truth passes through three stages:
>> First, it is ridiculed;
>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-08 11:17:36 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:

> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:32:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 10:39 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, aka "Bumper", the stupid cracker of
>>>>> Alpharetta, GA - likes to lie and say he's "considering" the way animals
>>>>> benefit from existence. He is not. Goo - "Bumper" - only considers the
>>>>> products he obtains from farm animals; nothing about their lives.
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo. It is
>>>>> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
>>>>> than never existing. Goo. That's just reality.
>>>> Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
>>>> David Harrison to change his position? Do you think anyone else cares?
>>>> What's the point?
>>> I heard you were dead.
>> Just got bored. I took your advice and decided to get serious, started
>> studying Lie groups and buildings, and working on generalising the
>> results of my thesis to the infinite-dimensional case, at my co-
>> worker's suggestion.
>>
>> Hey, Rudy, I've got a question for you.
>>
>> You know how we speak of battery cage and free-range egg production?
>> And you know how it's widely believed that, while there are some
>> welfare problems with free-range egg production, they're considerably
>> less than those with battery cage egg production, and some even go so
>> far as to say that the least consumers can do if they're going to eat
>> eggs at all is to spend the tiny amount of extra money on free-range
>> eggs? Quite a few people I know go so far as to say that despite not
>> being animal rights people at all.
>
> People who are in favor of decent AW

That rules you out. You're only in favor of meat and gravy. You said so.


>> And when we get out onto the street
>> and talk about it everyone says "Oh yes, I buy free-range". The sales
>> figures for battery cage eggs would suggest that some of them are not
>> quite telling the truth, but it would appear that quite a lot of them
>> feel embarassed about buying battery cage eggs,
>
> People should feel ashamed to buy battery eggs when cage free
> are as easily available and not too much more expensive.

You don't buy "cage free" eggs.


>> they don't think it's
>> quite kosher. So that's one position anyway.
>>
>> I was just wondering where you stand on that. Do you have the view
>> that there's a moral obligation to boycott battery cage eggs?
>>
>> You've said that you think there are some constraints on how we may
>> treat nonhuman animals, and I'm just trying to get a bit more of a
>> handle on exactly what you think those constraints are.
>
>
> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Rudy

*CORRECT*


Rudy Canoza
2008-10-08 11:50:27 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking
cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even
*more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:27:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, Stupidist SPAMMER, stupid pig-fucking cracker, cockfighting specialist - woke up and said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he lied:
>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 1:10 am, Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>>>>> "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock, Goo. It is
>>>>> not "better" for them that they exist, regardless of quality of life,
>>>>> than never existing. Goo. That's just reality.
>>>> Where exactly is this going to get you? Do you think you will ever get
>>>> David Harrison to change his position?
>>> We both know some livestock benefit from lives of positive value.
>>> The Goos know it too.
>>>
>> It seems to me that what Rudy is trying to say is that when you bring
>> a farm animal into existence you cannot be said to be conferring a
>> benefit on that animal because you cannot be said to be conferring a
>> benefit on an individual unless that individual exists prior to your
>> conferring the benefit. And, you know, I'd say Ball's right on this
>> one. It's not every day Ball and I agree on something, but I think
>> he's not a million miles off the mark here.
>
> All evidence suggests that beings do benefit from lives of positive
> value

*ONLY* relative to lives of bad welfare, Goo - *not* relative to never
existing.

You're talking about existence, Goo - you always have been. You
believe, wrongly, that it is better for the livestock themselves to
exist rather than never exist. That's what you believe, and it's absurd.



>> I've said some stuff about the outcome being better for one more happy
>> animal existing which Rudy doesn't like.
>
> He hates that because it favors decent AW over

I point out that it's bullshit, similar to the way in which your belief
is bullshit. rupie believes it's "just better", for the universe, if
there are more animals; you believe existence _per se_ is good for the
animals themselves. You're both wrong.


>> However, I don't think that, just because you have made the outcome
>> better by bringing one more happy animal into existence

Except you haven't...


>> (and here I'm
>> ignoring the point that if no farm animals were brought into existence
>> then wild animals would fill the ecological niches that were thereby
>> freed up),
>
> We have no reason to believe that either.

We do.


>> you're then entitled to do whatever you want to it so long
>> as it remains the case that the outcome is better for the animal
>> existing. I think there are some constraints on how you may treat it
>> over and above that, and I think those constraints might be strong
>> enough that most of the animal farming we currently engage in is not
>> morally justifiable. Indeed, I'd even go so far as to say that most of
>> the animal farming that goes on at the moment is such that the outcome
>> is *not* better for the animals farmed being brought into existence,
>> because their lives are so bloody miserable.
>
> From my own experience

You have virtually *ZERO* relevant experience.


> I disagree with that except

You don't know what you're talking about. You're not a farmer, and you
don't have any dealings with farmers.


>> Now, it's true that I financially

more than "merely financially"...


>> support plant-based agriculture (and
>> just so Rudy won't burst a blood vessel I'll do my best to make it
>> absolutely clear what I'm doing; I'm voluntarily and repeatedly buying
>> food products whose production entailed animal slaughter) and so I
>> guess consistency requires me to say that maybe some forms of animal
>> farming might be morally justifiable.
>
> As much so as all the ways vegans contribute to the deaths of
> animals that most other people contribute to, which is pretty much
> all except those which provide life for livestock.
>
>> Unless I want to say that what
>> I'm doing is morally wrong. Derek thinks I've got it wrong here, but
>> Derek thinks I don't deserve the privilege of him bothering to try to
>> have a serious discussion about ethics with me because I have a
>> history of psychosis, so he won't deign to explain to me how I've got
>> it wrong. Isn't Derek a funny old chap.
>
> When people say cowardly cop-out things like

...like "lives of positive value", by which they mean "existence", being
a benefit - that sort of cowardly cop-out thing...


>> So, consistency requires me to
>> say that the constraints are not so extensive as to rule out all
>> conceivable forms of animal farming,
>
> That is a big step but so far it appears to be the only one you
> want to take, and even though it is a big step it can't get you
> very far.

It means he has abandoned "ar".


>> but nevertheless I support the
>> goal of the abolition of the property status of nonhumans as the best
>> strategy to protect animals from abuse and I allow the pursuit of that
>> goal to guide my practice. I guess you won't be overjoyed to hear
>> that.
>
> No because I believe it could offer the animals less protection,
> not more.

You don't care about animal welfare; all you care about is the meat and
gravy.


>
>> So that's where I stand. Maybe someone will understand it this time.
>
> I believe I understand it,

You don't. You're a stupid pig-fucking cracker - too stupid to
understand it.


>> Rudy will say it's all an incoherent slop, but I guess I'm not
>> convinced that he's shown how his own position is more coherent,
>> whatever it is.
>
> Rudy is very critical of everyone else,

I'm very critical of people who bullshit.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron