Vegetarian Discussion: Pet Ownership

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Larrylook
2006-01-25 21:06:49 EST
I'd like to hear from vegetarians and others whether you have problems with
pet ownership - such as cats, dogs, or snakes (that are fed mice).
Specifically since they are fed animals that wouldn't ordinarily die if you
didn't own a pet. Aren't you responsible for the deaths of chickens if you
feed chicken pet food to your cat? Or mice that you feed to your pet snake.
What are your feelings? Do any of you vegetarians avoid obtaining pets that
you'd enjoy having for moral reasons (because of what you'd have to feed
them). Appreciate any thoughtful replies. Thanks.



Larrylook
2006-01-26 06:42:35 EST
I know some pets like dogs might be able to be fed vegetarian diets, but I'm
talking about getting a pet that needs meat (like a ball python) or a spouse
or child in your family wants to get a pet and is disinclined to feed it a
vegetarian diet and plans to feed it meat. Any thoughts out there from
vegetarians or others. What's your position on this? Do you feel
responsibility (or moral problems) because of the animals that die to feed
the pet? Surely someone has a thought. Don't let the nasty people here
scare you away.



D*@.
2006-01-29 14:00:00 EST
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:06:49 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote:

>I'd like to hear from vegetarians and others whether you have problems with
>pet ownership - such as cats, dogs, or snakes (that are fed mice).
>Specifically since they are fed animals that wouldn't ordinarily die if you
>didn't own a pet.

I seriously doubt that animals are raised and killed to feed cats and dogs.
I'm convinced that their food comes from byproducts of animals that are killed
to feed humans.

>Aren't you responsible for the deaths of chickens if you
>feed chicken pet food to your cat?

No. Not in any way responsible for the death of any chicken, unless
you in some way cause its death. I'm not even responsible for the deaths
of the chickens I eat. They are already dead and wrapped in plastic the
first time I have anything to do with them.

>Or mice that you feed to your pet snake.

I've never fed a pet snake mice, but if I did I'd try to give the mice a
decent life of positive value. I would want to raise them specifically for
it, so I'd know that it was that life or no life at all for them.



Slippery Slope
2006-01-29 14:39:45 EST
psychotic crossposts removed - eat shit, Fuckwit.


Fuckwit David Harrison blabbered more nonsense:

> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:06:49 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd like to hear from vegetarians and others whether you have problems with
>>pet ownership - such as cats, dogs, or snakes (that are fed mice).
>>Specifically since they are fed animals that wouldn't ordinarily die if you
>>didn't own a pet.
>
>
> I seriously doubt that animals are raised and killed to feed cats and dogs.
> I'm convinced that their food comes from byproducts of animals that are killed
> to feed humans.

There are over 60 million dogs in the United States,
Fuckwit, and a comparable number of cats. The food to
feed that many animals is definitely *not* simply a
"byproduct" of human food production.

You can't isolate the market demand into its individual
components, Fuckwit, you moron. Ranchers and farmers
have no idea for whom their livestock are destined.
All they see is a price per hundredweight of carcass,
and they either produce animals or they don't. If all
the dogs and cats in the U.S. suddenly disappeared,
Fuckwit, the price of meat would decline dramatically,
and far less of it would be produced, until the supply
and demand determined a stable price again.

Once again, Fuckwit, you are talking about subjects of
which you are totally ignorant.


>
>
>>Aren't you responsible for the deaths of chickens if you
>>feed chicken pet food to your cat?
>
>
> No.

Yes. Yes, you are.

The question is, is it wrong? You, Fuckwit, seem to
believe it is, so you attempt to "mitigate" it by
pointing out the morally meaningless fact that the
livestock animals bred and slaughtered to feed cats and
dogs "at least 'got to experience life'." It's no
mitigation at all, Fuckwit, but you seem to feel it is.

D*@.
2006-01-29 19:00:15 EST
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Goo wrote:

>dh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:06:49 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd like to hear from vegetarians and others whether you have problems with
>>>pet ownership - such as cats, dogs, or snakes (that are fed mice).
>>>Specifically since they are fed animals that wouldn't ordinarily die if you
>>>didn't own a pet.
>>
>>
>> I seriously doubt that animals are raised and killed to feed cats and dogs.
>> I'm convinced that their food comes from byproducts of animals that are killed
>> to feed humans.
>
>There are over 60 million dogs in the United States,
>Fuckwit, and a comparable number of cats. The food to
>feed that many animals is definitely *not* simply a
>"byproduct" of human food production.

So are you saying that animals are raised and killed only
to provide food for dogs and cats Goober? What kind of
animals, and where can we learn more about them?

>You can't isolate the market demand into its individual
>components, Fuckwit, you moron. Ranchers and farmers
>have no idea for whom their livestock are destined.
>All they see is a price per hundredweight of carcass,
>and they either produce animals or they don't. If all
>the dogs and cats in the U.S. suddenly disappeared,
>Fuckwit, the price of meat would decline dramatically,
>and far less of it would be produced, until the supply
>and demand determined a stable price again.
>
>Once again, Fuckwit, you are talking about subjects of
>which you are totally ignorant.

LOL!!! I'll remain "ignorant" of your imaginary animals
that are raised only to feed dogs and cats I feel quite
certain, since I don't believe there are any. Of course
I'll predict that you can't even attempt to back up this
claim about your imaginary pet food livestock, but it would
be amusing to see you try.

>>>Aren't you responsible for the deaths of chickens if you
>>>feed chicken pet food to your cat?
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes. Yes, you are.

LOL! I am not Goo. I'm no more responsible for the death
of a chicken in your cat food can than you are. But thanks
again for the hilarity via your stupidity.

Slippery Slope
2006-01-29 22:20:51 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cornholing cracker in
Buford, GA, lied:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cornholing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:06:49 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'd like to hear from vegetarians and others whether you have problems with
>>>>pet ownership - such as cats, dogs, or snakes (that are fed mice).
>>>>Specifically since they are fed animals that wouldn't ordinarily die if you
>>>>didn't own a pet.
>>>
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt that animals are raised and killed to feed cats and dogs.
>>>I'm convinced that their food comes from byproducts of animals that are killed
>>>to feed humans.
>>
>>There are over 60 million dogs in the United States,
>>Fuckwit, and a comparable number of cats. The food to
>>feed that many animals is definitely *not* simply a
>>"byproduct" of human food production.
>
>
> So are you saying that animals are raised and killed only
> to provide food for dogs and cats

No, Fuckwit. I'm not saying that. In fact, Fuckwit,
you fuckwitted possum-fucker, immediately below I
explicitly say that you CANNOT separate the animals
into "intended for humans" and "intended for pets".
But because you fuck possums and are a STUPID
MOTHERFUCKING CRACKER, you missed it.

You are so incredibly stupid, Fuckwit. If I ever saw
you, I would have to beat your brains out with a
baseball bat or rock, just to save the world.


>>You can't isolate the market demand into its individual
>>components, Fuckwit, you moron. Ranchers and farmers
>>have no idea for whom their livestock are destined.
>>All they see is a price per hundredweight of carcass,
>>and they either produce animals or they don't. If all
>>the dogs and cats in the U.S. suddenly disappeared,
>>Fuckwit, the price of meat would decline dramatically,
>>and far less of it would be produced, until the supply
>>and demand determined a stable price again.
>>
>>Once again, Fuckwit, you are talking about subjects of
>>which you are totally ignorant.
>
>
> LOL!!! I'll remain "ignorant"

You sure will, Fuckwit - you sure will.


>>>>Aren't you responsible for the deaths of chickens if you
>>>>feed chicken pet food to your cat?
>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>>Yes. Yes, you are.
>
>
> LOL! I am not Leif.

Yes, Fuckwit, you are.

B*@yahoo.com
2006-01-30 06:52:58 EST
larrylook wrote:
> I'd like to hear from vegetarians and others whether you have problems with
> pet ownership - such as cats, dogs, or snakes (that are fed mice).
> Specifically since they are fed animals that wouldn't ordinarily die if you
> didn't own a pet. Aren't you responsible for the deaths of chickens if you
> feed chicken pet food to your cat? Or mice that you feed to your pet snake.
> What are your feelings? Do any of you vegetarians avoid obtaining pets that
> you'd enjoy having for moral reasons (because of what you'd have to feed
> them). Appreciate any thoughtful replies. Thanks.

There is a fundamental flaw in your proposition of "pet ownership".
Those of us who rescue dogs from shelters do not consider them property
but companions and friends and treat them responsibly. I prefer the
term pet guardianship. We found that some of the dogs that came from
abusive environments (the garbage who abuse animals should be severely
punished) are not disposed to training or any kind of discipline. After
we put them on UL (unconditional love) we find that they naturally
adapt to their environment and make no mess, not out of fear but out of
desire to be good. People would take advantage of freedoms we allow our
dumb friends, animals do not. They seem to be doing just fine without
eating meat.


D*@.
2006-02-06 10:56:26 EST
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh wrote
:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, the Goober declaired:

>>>There are over 60 million dogs in the United States,
>>>Fuckwit, and a comparable number of cats. The food to
>>>feed that many animals is definitely *not* simply a
>>>"byproduct" of human food production.
>>
>>
>> So are you saying that animals are raised and killed only
>> to provide food for dogs and cats
>
>No, Fuckwit. I'm not saying that. In fact, Fuckwit,
>you fuckwitted possum-fucker, immediately below I
>explicitly say that you CANNOT separate the animals
>into "intended for humans" and "intended for pets".

LOL! Yes you can, you stupid Goober. They are all intended
for humans, and the pets get what humans don't eat. You're
too stupid to understand that of course, but that's how it is.
I seriously doubt you can provide examples of any animals that
are raised commercially primarily to make dog or cat food Goo,
because I doubt there are any. There are however billions of
them raised primarily to feed humans, you poor idiot.

Leif Erikson
2006-02-06 13:14:35 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> :
> >> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, the Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >>>There are over 60 million dogs in the United States,
> >>>Fuckwit, and a comparable number of cats. The food to
> >>>feed that many animals is definitely *not* simply a
> >>>"byproduct" of human food production.
> >>
> >>
> >> So are you saying that animals are raised and killed only
> >> to provide food for dogs and cats
> >
> >No, Fuckwit. I'm not saying that. In fact, Fuckwit,
> >you fuckwitted possum-fucker, immediately below I
> >explicitly say that you CANNOT separate the animals
> >into "intended for humans" and "intended for pets".
>
> LOL! Yes you can,

No, you can't, Fuckwit. There is demand for meat, and ranchers raise
livestock in response to the demand. The food for ONE-HUNDRED TWENTY
MILLION dogs and cats is *not* for the "leftovers" from human meat
production, Fuckwit. It is a significant demand in its own right.

You STUPID, ignorant fuckwit.


Leif Erikson
2006-02-06 18:58:04 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> > >Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> > :
> > >> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, the Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> > >>>There are over 60 million dogs in the United States,
> > >>>Fuckwit, and a comparable number of cats. The food to
> > >>>feed that many animals is definitely *not* simply a
> > >>>"byproduct" of human food production.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So are you saying that animals are raised and killed only
> > >> to provide food for dogs and cats
> > >
> > >No, Fuckwit. I'm not saying that. In fact, Fuckwit,
> > >you fuckwitted possum-fucker, immediately below I
> > >explicitly say that you CANNOT separate the animals
> > >into "intended for humans" and "intended for pets".
> >
> > LOL! Yes you can,
>
> No, you can't, Fuckwit. There is demand for meat, and ranchers raise
> livestock in response to the demand. The food for ONE-HUNDRED TWENTY
> MILLION dogs and cats is *not* for the "leftovers" from human meat
> production, Fuckwit. It is a significant demand in its own right.
>
> You STUPID, ignorant fuckwit.



Which animals are raised specifically and exclusively for pet food Goo?

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


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