Vegetarian Discussion: Challenge: Can You Do Better Than The Goos?

Challenge: Can You Do Better Than The Goos?
Posts: 68

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2006-01-10 21:59:01 EST
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh explained:

>>Dutch amusingly "thought":

>>>dh pointed out:

[...]
>> At first honest "ARAs" were all in my ass about it,
>
>EVERYONE told you you're full of shit

No one has provided a good reason for not giving the animals'
lives as much consideration as their deaths Goo. Only "aras" have
even made the futile attempt, except for Swamp who used only
"ar" arguments, so he doesn't count for anything. Rick doesn't agree
that we should, but he hasn't tried to give good reason why we
should not. Ward Clark didn't agree that we should, and I damned
sure wanted to learn what his objections are, but he never provided
any. No one has a good reason not to Goo. Not even you.

[...]
>>>>"Contributing to decent AW" proves that I take quality of life into
>>>>consideration. You and the Goober are lying when you say otherwise.
>>
>>>That fact does not come with a any moral significance, if it did, that
>>>would lead to a very strong case IN FAVOUR OF AR, not against
>>>it.
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes.

I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths, and/or
how doing so could possibly be a very strong case in favor of
their elimination. Can any of you do better than the Goos?

Leif Erikson
2006-01-10 23:01:01 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in
Atlanta, GA, lied:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied:
>
> >>Dutch wrote:
>
> >>>Fuckwit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied:
>
> [...]
> >> At first honest "ARAs" were all in my ass about it,
> >
> >EVERYONE told you you're full of shit
>
> No one has provided a good reason for not giving the animals'
> lives as much consideration as their deaths

YOU have provided no legitimate reason, ever, for "thinking" that it is
better if livestock animals live rather than never live. You can't -
you know it, and we know it: you just can't.

Livestock do not "benefit" from coming into existence, Fuckwit. They
just don't. Coming into existence is never a "benefit" versus never
existing at all, and THEREFORE, Fuckwit, there is no legitimate reason
for you to give their existence - their "getting to experience life" -
*any* consideration at all.

In any case, Fuckwit, this phony "consideration" you give their lives
is just a dissipated, wasted attempt at a smokescreen. YOU don't
really give a shit about their "getting to experience life", Fuckwit.
You're just trying to rationalize the fact that you want to eat them.


Dutch
2006-01-11 02:20:18 EST
<*h@.> wrote
> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths

We do give their lives consideration, that's what "animal welfare" is.

If you are unable to understand that I suggest you re-enroll in primary
school.



D*@.
2006-01-11 11:01:32 EST
On 10 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You're just trying to rationalize the fact that you want to eat them.
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <1110916574.077787.257690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the animals
somehow mitigates the harm.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <Q4RKd.2867$Ix.1159@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>

"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <1109786836.098828.304510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: jonball52@altavista.com (Jonathan Ball)
Message-ID: <e435dead.0204111753.64a3330e@posting.google.com>

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jonb...@earthlink.NS.net>
Message-ID: <3BA61201.2010304@earthlink.NS.net>

And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con>
Message-ID: <5r5Ud.7831$Ba3.3880@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>

There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm
animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more
just world.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

D*@.
2006-01-11 11:03:19 EST
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths
>
>We do give their lives consideration

Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though
you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years.

Leif Erikson
2006-01-11 12:11:08 EST
dh@. wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
>>>livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths
>>
>>We do give their lives consideration
>
>
> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so,

Here's what Dutch actually wrote that you unethically
edited: "We do give their lives consideration, that's
what "animal welfare" is."

We do *not* give moral consideration to the morally
meaningless fact of the animals' coming into existence,
Fuckwit; we give consideration to the *quality* of life
they experience, when and if they come into existence.
Dutch was using a kind of shorthand, Fuckwit, which
you knew but are too unethical to acknowledge.

We always win, Fuckwit. You're going to learn.

Leif Erikson
2006-01-11 12:11:08 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old
pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied:

> On 10 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You're just trying to rationalize the fact that you want to eat them.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> From: Leif
> Message-ID: <1110916574.077787.257690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
> on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the animals
> somehow mitigates the harm.

A deliberately dishonest and incomplete citation,
Fuckwit. Here's what was originally written, Fuckwit:

The comment you ridiculed, correctly, is from
Fuckwit David Harrison. Fuckwit subscribes to a
bankrupt, illogical pseudo-philosophy called The
(Il)Logic of the Larder. According to that bit of
fuckwittery, people who consume animals justify the
harm they inflict on the animals by believing that
"giving" life to the animals somehow mitigates the
harm. It's a futile, fuckwitted attempt to counter
the equally fuckwitted, bankrupt philosophy of
"veganism". It doesn't work. Causing animals to be
born and "get to experience life" (in Fuckwit's
wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for killing
them.

Most meat eaters don't subscribe to the Illogic of the
Larder, Fuckwit; they just eat meat.

I always win, Fuckwit. You're going to learn.

Dutch
2006-01-11 15:18:20 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths
>>
>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare]
>
> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though
> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years.

I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare, I oppose your
"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived
acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that they "experienced
life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This
so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder" is two-bit
sophistry.

Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything
less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only
even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything.
Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them,
we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those
animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument"
fails.



D*@.
2006-01-15 14:51:36 EST
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're just trying to rationalize the fact that you want to eat them.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>> From: Goo
>> Message-ID: <1110916574.077787.257690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
>> on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the animals
>> somehow mitigates the harm.
>
>A deliberately dishonest and incomplete citation,
>Fuckwit. Here's what was originally written, Fuckwit:
>
> The comment you ridiculed, correctly, is from
> Fuckwit David Harrison. Fuckwit subscribes to a
> bankrupt, illogical pseudo-philosophy called The
> (Il)Logic of the Larder. According to that bit of
> fuckwittery, people who consume animals justify the
> harm they inflict on the animals
[...]

What is the harm Goo? I've been asking you/"aras"
that for a long time, and you never explain exactly what
it is.

>I always win, Fuckwit. You're going to learn.

I can only learn how you/"aras" ever "win" if you can
some time explain what the harm is, and how preventing
animals from living is the most ethically superior way of
eliminating that harm, Goo.

D*@.
2006-01-15 15:02:12 EST
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
>>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths
>>>
>>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare]
>>
>> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though
>> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years.
>
>I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare,

You do it every time you oppose me, and you do it ESPECIALLY
when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life.

>I oppose your
>"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived
>acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that

*IF!* (retard)

>they

Had a life which was a positive experience.

>"experienced
>life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This
>so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder"

How is it aptly dubbed that? That, like the gross misnomer "ar", just
appear to be extremely obvious in their dishonesty to me, and I feel quite
certain you can never explain how either is a valid name for what it
pretends to represent.

>is two-bit
>sophistry.

That's a lie.

>Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything
>less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only
>even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything.
>Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them,
>we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those
>animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument"
>fails.

You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could
have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less
can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals
or why it should be taken into consideration.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


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