Vegetarian Discussion: Affects On Animal Evolution Caused By Humans

Affects On Animal Evolution Caused By Humans
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)

S*@gmail.com
2005-11-23 10:09:40 EST
Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from us
knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend before
us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.


D*@.
2005-11-23 11:41:49 EST
On 23 Nov 2005 07:09:40 -0800, shahab86@gmail.com wrote:

>Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from us
>knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
>warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend before
>us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
>affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.

Look at dogs. Look at cats. Look at livestock. Then there are
the extinctions we're responsible for, and the overall reductions in
populations. We not only have great influence on domestic animals,
but on wildlife as well. That's why I encourage people to consider
the animals' lives regardless of whether they're domestic or wildlife,
meaning give the lives of animals we raise for food as much or more
consideration than those of wildlife, and the deaths of both.

Dutch
2005-11-23 14:19:57 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On 23 Nov 2005 07:09:40 -0800, shahab86@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from us
>>knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
>>warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend before
>>us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
>>affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.
>
> Look at dogs. Look at cats. Look at livestock. Then there are
> the extinctions we're responsible for, and the overall reductions in
> populations. We not only have great influence on domestic animals,
> but on wildlife as well. That's why I encourage people to consider
> the animals' lives regardless of whether they're domestic or wildlife,
> meaning give the lives of animals we raise for food as much or more
> consideration than those of wildlife, and the deaths of both.

What you encourage is confused sophistry.



D*@.
2005-11-24 15:10:06 EST
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:25:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:57 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On 23 Nov 2005 07:09:40 -0800, shahab86@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from us
>>>>knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
>>>>warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend before
>>>>us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
>>>>affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.
>>>
>>> Look at dogs. Look at cats. Look at livestock. Then there are
>>> the extinctions we're responsible for, and the overall reductions in
>>> populations. We not only have great influence on domestic animals,
>>> but on wildlife as well. That's why I encourage people to consider
>>> the animals' lives regardless of whether they're domestic or wildlife,
>>> meaning give the lives of animals we raise for food as much or more
>>> consideration than those of wildlife, and the deaths of both.
>>
>>What you encourage is confused sophistry.
>
What do YOU/"ARAs" encourage that would be better, and how
would it be better?

Dutch
2005-11-24 16:24:22 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:te7co15pss5dne44d16m4mqj5btgl4j5sb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:25:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:57 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On 23 Nov 2005 07:09:40 -0800, shahab86@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from us
>>>>>knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
>>>>>warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend before
>>>>>us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
>>>>>affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.
>>>>
>>>> Look at dogs. Look at cats. Look at livestock. Then there are
>>>> the extinctions we're responsible for, and the overall reductions in
>>>> populations. We not only have great influence on domestic animals,
>>>> but on wildlife as well. That's why I encourage people to consider
>>>> the animals' lives regardless of whether they're domestic or wildlife,
>>>> meaning give the lives of animals we raise for food as much or more
>>>> consideration than those of wildlife, and the deaths of both.
>>>
>>>What you encourage is confused sophistry.
>>
> What do YOU/"ARAs" encourage that would be better, and how
> would it be better?

I would encourage people to ignore your meaningless nonsense, but I don't
need to.



D*@.
2005-11-25 14:30:50 EST
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:24:22 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:te7co15pss5dne44d16m4mqj5btgl4j5sb@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:25:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:57 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On 23 Nov 2005 07:09:40 -0800, shahab86@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from us
>>>>>>knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
>>>>>>warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend before
>>>>>>us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
>>>>>>affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at dogs. Look at cats. Look at livestock. Then there are
>>>>> the extinctions we're responsible for, and the overall reductions in
>>>>> populations. We not only have great influence on domestic animals,
>>>>> but on wildlife as well. That's why I encourage people to consider
>>>>> the animals' lives regardless of whether they're domestic or wildlife,
>>>>> meaning give the lives of animals we raise for food as much or more
>>>>> consideration than those of wildlife, and the deaths of both.
>>>>
>>>>What you encourage is confused sophistry.
>>>
>> What do YOU/"ARAs" encourage that would be better, and how
>> would it be better?
>
>I would encourage people to ignore your meaningless nonsense,

You would tell people to become vegan instead of deliberately
contributing to decent lives for livestock instead. I'm sure you would
talk a veg*n who eats eggs out of buying any eggs at all if you could,
instead of encouraging him to buy cage free in order to promote that
type of farming = promote cage free lives for commercial layers.

>but I don't
>need to.

No, you don't. Because people who "go veg*n" like yourself could
never give a damn about contributing to decent lives for animals, or
even appreciate that you/they contribute to any.

Dutch
2005-11-25 16:14:18 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:24:22 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:te7co15pss5dne44d16m4mqj5btgl4j5sb@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:25:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:57 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On 23 Nov 2005 07:09:40 -0800, shahab86@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from us
>>>>>>>knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
>>>>>>>warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend
>>>>>>>before
>>>>>>>us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
>>>>>>>affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at dogs. Look at cats. Look at livestock. Then there are
>>>>>> the extinctions we're responsible for, and the overall reductions in
>>>>>> populations. We not only have great influence on domestic animals,
>>>>>> but on wildlife as well. That's why I encourage people to consider
>>>>>> the animals' lives regardless of whether they're domestic or
>>>>>> wildlife,
>>>>>> meaning give the lives of animals we raise for food as much or more
>>>>>> consideration than those of wildlife, and the deaths of both.
>>>>>
>>>>>What you encourage is confused sophistry.
>>>>
>>> What do YOU/"ARAs" encourage that would be better, and how
>>> would it be better?
>>
>>I would encourage people to ignore your meaningless nonsense,
>
> You would tell people to become vegan instead of deliberately
> contributing to decent lives for livestock instead.

There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, but being a "vegan" implies a
way of thinking that I don't agree with.

There's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, but your meaningless nonsense
is another way of thinking that I don't agree with.

> I'm sure you would
> talk a veg*n who eats eggs out of buying any eggs at all if you could,
> instead of encouraging him to buy cage free in order to promote that
> type of farming = promote cage free lives for commercial layers.

There's no difference. There's no moral comparison between raising chickens
and not raising chickens. The valid comparison is between causing them to
suffer and giving them good conditions.

>>but I don't
>>need to.
>
> No, you don't. Because people who "go veg*n" like yourself could
> never give a damn about contributing to decent lives for animals, or
> even appreciate that you/they contribute to any.

"Contributing to decent lives for animals" as you say, is not comparable to
abstaining.

You aren't raising mice in your bedroom and giving them "decent lives", some
people do, they aren't being more moral than you. You can't be judged
negatively based on something you AREN'T doing unless it's a moral
obligation, and raising mice or chickens isn't.

Raising children properly is not comparable to not having children. Morally,
people are judged on what they DO, not what they DON'T DO.

You're trying to do something that is morally and logically inadmissable.



D*@.
2005-11-26 16:00:58 EST
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:14:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:24:22 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:te7co15pss5dne44d16m4mqj5btgl4j5sb@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:25:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:57 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On 23 Nov 2005 07:09:40 -0800, shahab86@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from us
>>>>>>>>knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
>>>>>>>>warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend
>>>>>>>>before
>>>>>>>>us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
>>>>>>>>affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look at dogs. Look at cats. Look at livestock. Then there are
>>>>>>> the extinctions we're responsible for, and the overall reductions in
>>>>>>> populations. We not only have great influence on domestic animals,
>>>>>>> but on wildlife as well. That's why I encourage people to consider
>>>>>>> the animals' lives regardless of whether they're domestic or
>>>>>>> wildlife,
>>>>>>> meaning give the lives of animals we raise for food as much or more
>>>>>>> consideration than those of wildlife, and the deaths of both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What you encourage is confused sophistry.
>>>>>
>>>> What do YOU/"ARAs" encourage that would be better, and how
>>>> would it be better?
>>>
>>>I would encourage people to ignore your meaningless nonsense,
>>
>> You would tell people to become vegan instead of deliberately
>> contributing to decent lives for livestock instead.
>
>There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, but being a "vegan" implies a
>way of thinking that I don't agree with.
>
>There's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, but your meaningless nonsense
>is another way of thinking that I don't agree with.
>
>> I'm sure you would
>> talk a veg*n who eats eggs out of buying any eggs at all if you could,
>> instead of encouraging him to buy cage free in order to promote that
>> type of farming = promote cage free lives for commercial layers.
>
>There's no difference. There's no moral comparison between raising chickens
>and not raising chickens. The valid comparison is between causing them to
>suffer and giving them good conditions.

If so, then explain how anything a person could buy would provide good
conditions INSTEAD OF suffering for ANY particular animal(s).


Since you can't provide even ONE example, it's obviously a lie when you
say it's "The valid comparison", since your inability to provide any example(s)
of it proves that it's not a comparison at all.

Dutch
2005-11-26 18:56:59 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:aqiho192bd284imisnnsmeq92t1oc178dn@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:14:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:24:22 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:te7co15pss5dne44d16m4mqj5btgl4j5sb@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:25:08 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:57 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On 23 Nov 2005 07:09:40 -0800, shahab86@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well this is all pretty intereting but I'm sure that each one from
>>>>>>>>>us
>>>>>>>>>knows that we have a quit of chunk of responisbility for global
>>>>>>>>>warming. The extintion of animals is something that has happend
>>>>>>>>>before
>>>>>>>>>us and will continue on no matter what we do. We are actually only
>>>>>>>>>affecting the evolution of animals by a very small way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look at dogs. Look at cats. Look at livestock. Then there are
>>>>>>>> the extinctions we're responsible for, and the overall reductions
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> populations. We not only have great influence on domestic animals,
>>>>>>>> but on wildlife as well. That's why I encourage people to consider
>>>>>>>> the animals' lives regardless of whether they're domestic or
>>>>>>>> wildlife,
>>>>>>>> meaning give the lives of animals we raise for food as much or more
>>>>>>>> consideration than those of wildlife, and the deaths of both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What you encourage is confused sophistry.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What do YOU/"ARAs" encourage that would be better, and how
>>>>> would it be better?
>>>>
>>>>I would encourage people to ignore your meaningless nonsense,
>>>
>>> You would tell people to become vegan instead of deliberately
>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock instead.
>>
>>There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, but being a "vegan" implies
>>a
>>way of thinking that I don't agree with.
>>
>>There's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, but your meaningless
>>nonsense
>>is another way of thinking that I don't agree with.
>>
>>> I'm sure you would
>>> talk a veg*n who eats eggs out of buying any eggs at all if you could,
>>> instead of encouraging him to buy cage free in order to promote that
>>> type of farming = promote cage free lives for commercial layers.
>>
>>There's no difference. There's no moral comparison between raising
>>chickens
>>and not raising chickens. The valid comparison is between causing them to
>>suffer and giving them good conditions.
>
> If so, then explain how anything a person could buy would provide good
> conditions INSTEAD OF suffering for ANY particular animal(s).
>
>
> Since you can't provide even ONE example, it's obviously a lie when you
> say it's "The valid comparison", since your inability to provide any
> example(s)
> of it proves that it's not a comparison at all.

You are asking the wrong question. It should be "How can a person promote
good conditions instead of poor conditions for animals *in general* with
their consumer choices?"

Buying free-range eggs promotes the production of free-range chickens, and
takes your business away from battery-cage operators. It's simple economics,
rick has trouble with this concept also.

But the point I made above was that abstaining from eggs and thus not
contributing to *any* conditions at all for commercial hens, is a neutral
position. As far as the egg industry is concerned that person may as well be
dead. So to attack a person based on them *not* buying free-range eggs is
silly, you may as well make moral arguments against the dead.

Another interesting extrapolation of your irrational beliefs, they just
never end.






D*@.
2005-11-27 12:30:09 EST
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:56:59 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:aqiho192bd284imisnnsmeq92t1oc178dn@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:14:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>>>The valid comparison is between causing them to
>>>suffer and giving them good conditions.
>>
>> If so, then explain how anything a person could buy would provide good
>> conditions INSTEAD OF suffering for ANY particular animal(s).
>>
>>
>> Since you can't provide even ONE example, it's obviously a lie when you
>> say it's "The valid comparison", since your inability to provide any
>> example(s)
>> of it proves that it's not a comparison at all.
>
>You are asking the wrong question. It should be "How can a person promote
>good conditions instead of poor conditions for animals *in general* with
>their consumer choices?"

It ALWAYS gets down to whether a person is going to contribute to
the LIFE THEY GET or if they are not, NOT!!! better lives for any animals,
as I've been telling you for years and you have been objecting to the
entire time. And you still can't understand fact!

>Buying free-range eggs promotes the production of free-range chickens,

That's what I've been saying and you have been objecting to. YOU/"ARAs"
will undoubtedly never be able to appreciate it, but it remains true as it has
for years whether you can appreciate it or not.

>and
>takes your business away from battery-cage operators.

It's still the same thing. You can deliberately contribute to life for battery
cage hens, or you can try not to. That has nothing to do with whether or
not you contribute to cage free, which is a very significant aspect that
you don't want people to keep in mind.

>It's simple economics,
>rick has trouble with this concept also.

He doesn't give a shit about promoting life for any animals except for
*maybe* some types of wildlife. So far I don't believe that YOU/"ARAs"
do either. I've been explaining it to YOU/"ARAs" for years, and sometimes
even post a list of some of your "vegetarian" meat substitutes that contain
egg whites, BECAUSE contributing to them contributes to battery farming.
You are way behind.

>But the point I made above was that abstaining from eggs and thus not
>contributing to *any* conditions at all for commercial hens, is a neutral
>position. As far as the egg industry is concerned that person may as well be
>dead. So to attack a person based on them *not* buying free-range eggs is
>silly, you may as well make moral arguments against the dead.
>
>Another interesting extrapolation of your irrational beliefs,

I pointed out long ago and you didn't understand that:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:52:24 -0700

<*.@nomail.com> wrote

> Vegans help less than dead people do.

What the hell does that mean?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and most likely in the future you will slink away from it like you did from the
fact that some farm animals' lives are of positive value, and that "Wild
animals on average suffer more than farm animals." You paste in ideas
that you see someplace else but don't understand...in fact you probably
just remember things I pointed out to you in the past that you can't
really understand, so in your confusion you paste them stupidly thinking
they in some way work against what I've been telling you all this time.
Funny, but still very sad.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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