Vegetarian Discussion: Two Ethical Facts

Two Ethical Facts
Posts: 21

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-09 16:09:19 EST
1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
for food.

2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to exist
than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
exist.

Rupert
2008-10-11 20:26:45 EST
On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
> for food.
>
> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to exist
> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
> exist.

Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
animals at all? What are they?

D*@.
2008-10-14 08:33:44 EST
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Goo wrote:
>> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
>> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
>> for food.
>>
>> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to exist
>> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
>> exist.
>
>Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
>animals at all? What are they?

That's one difference between the misnomer and AW. AW asks
the question and is intended to answer it as well. The misnomer
can't even ask it. They are conflicting ideas, and you seem to have
too much common sense to embrace the misnomer since you appear
to have some appreciation for some livestock animals. The reason you
don't want to move on from it is almost certainly mainly because of
cognitive dissonance. Ask your doc about that and I predict he/she
will say it's true. But how did you get stuck with the idea in the first
place? It seems either you were tricked into it while you were very
early in your appreciation for animals, or when you developed an
appreciation you wanted to take it to the extreme and dove into the
misnomer before you realised it's not at all what it pretends to be
on the surface.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-14 11:27:53 EST
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
>>> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
>>> for food.
>>>
>>> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to exist
>>> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
>>> exist.
>> Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
>> animals at all? What are they?
>
> That's one difference between the misnomer and AW. AW asks
> the question and is intended to answer it as well.

"AW" - what vomit - doesn't presuppose that there ought to be livestock
animals.

Dutch
2008-10-14 15:13:02 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
>>> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
>>> for food.
>>>
>>> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to
>>> exist
>>> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
>>> exist.
>>
>>Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
>>animals at all? What are they?
>
> That's one difference between the misnomer and AW. AW asks
> the question and is intended to answer it as well. The misnomer
> can't even ask it. They are conflicting ideas

AW addresses the welfare of animals which exist now or will exist in the
future. AR addresses the issue of whether or not we ought to be raising
livestock at all. There is no inconsistency between the two ideals, one may
believe in one or the other, neither, or both. The only misnomer here is
you.


P*@tanizone.net
2008-10-15 08:52:53 EST
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:13:02 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
>>>> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
>>>> for food.
>>>>
>>>> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to
>>>> exist
>>>> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>>Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
>>>animals at all? What are they?
>>
>> That's one difference between the misnomer and AW. AW asks
>> the question and is intended to answer it as well. The misnomer
>> can't even ask it. They are conflicting ideas
>
>AW addresses the welfare of animals which exist now or will exist in the
>future. AR addresses the issue of whether or not we ought to be raising
>livestock at all.

No. AW considers which animals should be raised in what
ways, and the misnomer insists none should be raised at all.

>There is no inconsistency between the two ideals,

How do you think eliminationists want people to raise
broiler chickens? Do you think they want to make many
changes to the current method, or keep raising them as
they're being raised now?

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-15 11:01:41 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, 14 Oct 2008 12:13:02 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.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 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>>>>> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
>>>>> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
>>>>> for food.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to
>>>>> exist
>>>>> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
>>>>> exist.
>>>> Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
>>>> animals at all? What are they?
>>> That's one difference between the misnomer and AW. AW asks
>>> the question and is intended to answer it as well. The misnomer
>>> can't even ask it. They are conflicting ideas
>> AW addresses the welfare of animals which exist now or will exist in the
>> future. AR addresses the issue of whether or not we ought to be raising
>> livestock at all.
>
> No. AW considers which animals should be raised

No, it does not.


> in what
> ways, and AR insists none should be raised at all.

That's what Mr. Dutch said, Goo.


>
>> There is no inconsistency between the two ideals,
>
> How do you think eliminationists

No such thing, Goo.

Dutch
2008-10-15 16:54:12 EST

<*i@tanizone.net> wrote in message
news:lkpbf4thrfe9mmtejmkk210iekcribf16o@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:13:02 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
>>>>> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
>>>>> for food.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to
>>>>> exist
>>>>> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>>Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
>>>>animals at all? What are they?
>>>
>>> That's one difference between the misnomer and AW. AW asks
>>> the question and is intended to answer it as well. The misnomer
>>> can't even ask it. They are conflicting ideas
>>
>>AW addresses the welfare of animals which exist now or will exist in the
>>future. AR addresses the issue of whether or not we ought to be raising
>>livestock at all.
>
> No. AW considers which animals should be raised in what
> ways,

Right, in other words we consider the welfare of animals that will be
raised.

> and the misnomer insists none should be raised at all.

Right, that *is* the question of whether or not we should raise animals.
Their arguments revolve around convincing us that we should not. We don't
buy the arguments, that does not mean we argue that we're doing animals a
service by "allowing them to experience life".

>>There is no inconsistency between the two ideals,
>
> How do you think eliminationists want people to raise
> broiler chickens? Do you think they want to make many
> changes to the current method, or keep raising them as
> they're being raised now?

"Eliminationists" <splut, gag, choke>, if they are AW advocates, are always
looking for better treatment for animals, improvements to living conditions,
such as more space per animal so they can spread their wings.
"Eliminationists" <splut, gag, choke> are aware that despite their desire
that we stop raising livestock, that livestock are raised anyway, so they
continue to be concerned about the quality of those animals' lives.




D*@.
2008-10-19 10:10:24 EST
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><pingTani@tanizone.net> wrote in message
>news:lkpbf4thrfe9mmtejmkk210iekcribf16o@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:13:02 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
>>>>>> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
>>>>>> for food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to
>>>>>> exist
>>>>>> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
>>>>>animals at all? What are they?
>>>>
>>>> That's one difference between the misnomer and AW. AW asks
>>>> the question and is intended to answer it as well. The misnomer
>>>> can't even ask it. They are conflicting ideas
>>>
>>>AW addresses the welfare of animals which exist now or will exist in the
>>>future. AR addresses the issue of whether or not we ought to be raising
>>>livestock at all.
>>
>> No. AW considers which animals should be raised in what
>> ways,
>
>Right, in other words we consider the welfare of animals that will be
>raised.

You are not an AW person. No one who opposes taking the
animals' lives into consideration could really be in favor of it.

>> and the misnomer insists none should be raised at all.
>
>Right, that *is* the question of whether or not we should raise animals.

No it's not for them. They have answered it in all cases and
the answer is no. AW allows for different answers which allows
for the animals. Why do you always want to pretend it's different
somehow?

>Their arguments revolve around convincing us that we should not. We don't
>buy the arguments, that does not mean we argue that we're doing animals a
>service by "allowing them to experience life".

The fact that you're opposed to people considering the fact
that some of them have lives of possitive value shows that
you're still in favor of the misnomer.

>>>There is no inconsistency between the two ideals,
>>
>> How do you think eliminationists want people to raise
>> broiler chickens? Do you think they want to make many
>> changes to the current method, or keep raising them as
>> they're being raised now?
>
>"Eliminationists" <splut, gag, choke>, if they are AW advocates, are always
>looking for better treatment for animals, improvements to living conditions,
>such as more space per animal so they can spread their wings.
>"Eliminationists" <splut, gag, choke> are aware that despite their desire
>that we stop raising livestock, that livestock are raised anyway, so they
>continue to be concerned about the quality of those animals' lives.

Yet regardless of how good they become you people will always
be opposed to appreciating the fact that they have lives of possitive
value.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-19 13:13:27 EST
Goo - aka "Bumper", aka 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 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka 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, 14 Oct 2008 12:13:02 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - aka "Bumper", aka 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 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:26:45 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 8:09 pm, Rudy A. Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. Human use of animals does not violate any "right" of animals.
>>>>>>> More particularly, animals do not have any right not to be killed
>>>>>>> for food.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. It is not more ethical to eat meat and thereby cause animals to
>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>> than to refrain from eating meat and thereby cause no animals to
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>> Are there any enforceable constraints on how we may treat nonhuman
>>>>>> animals at all? What are they?
>>>>> That's one difference between the misnomer and AW. AW asks
>>>>> the question and is intended to answer it as well. The misnomer
>>>>> can't even ask it. They are conflicting ideas
>>>> AW addresses the welfare of animals which exist now or will exist in the
>>>> future. AR addresses the issue of whether or not we ought to be raising
>>>> livestock at all.
>>> No. AW considers which animals should be raised in what
>>> ways,
>> Right, in other words we consider the welfare of animals that will be
>> raised.
>
> You are not an AW person.

He is.


>>> and the misnomer insists none should be raised at all.
>> Right, that *is* the question of whether or not we should raise animals.
>
> No it's not for them. They have answered it in all cases and
> the answer is no.

Yes, that is their answer.


>> Their arguments revolve around convincing us that we should not. We don't
>> buy the arguments, that does not mean we argue that we're doing animals a
>> service by "allowing them to experience life".
>
> The fact that you're opposed to people considering the fact
> that some of them have lives of possitive value

You do not give that consideration, Goo. That's just a smokescreen, and
we blew it away years ago.


>>>> There is no inconsistency between the two ideals,
>>> How do you think eliminationists

No such thing.


>>> want people to raise
>>> broiler chickens? Do you think they want to make many
>>> changes to the current method, or keep raising them as
>>> they're being raised now?
>> "Eliminationists" <splut, gag, choke>, if they are AW advocates, are always
>> looking for better treatment for animals, improvements to living conditions,
>> such as more space per animal so they can spread their wings.
>> "Eliminationists" <splut, gag, choke> are aware that despite their desire
>> that we stop raising livestock, that livestock are raised anyway, so they
>> continue to be concerned about the quality of those animals' lives.
>
> Yet regardless of how good they become you people will always
> be opposed to appreciating the fact that they have lives of possitive
> value.

No, not "you people". And their <gag - retch - hurl> "lives of
possitive [sic] value" are irrelevant. "aras" - but not Mr. Dutch or I
- feel that bringing them into existence in the first place is immoral,
and outweighs any bit of welfare they experience.

Your "consideration" is bogus. Everyone knows that.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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