Vegetarian Discussion: Pet Ownership - Part 2

Pet Ownership - Part 2
Posts: 55

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   Next  (First | Last)

Larrylook
2006-02-20 19:28:13 EST
I recently posted a question about how pet owners feel about having dogs,
cats or snakes that eat animals. Many pet snakes generally eat mice raised
for snake meals. I am assuming that many pet owners feed their dogs etc.
meat and not solely vegetarian food. The discussion seemed that followed
seemed to be over whether or not animals where killed to be part of pet
food. I think we can consider that settled. Even if cows are not killed to
be used for pet food only - I believe if you create a demand for meat than
you share responsibility for the meat being killed, even if the demand is
for part of the animal (like by-products). You can't absolve yourself of
the responsibility just because the pet meal created a need for only 10% of
the cow. If it creates profit for the cow creator than there's
responsibility there (on the part of the pet owner).

So given that the pet owner creates a demand for meat by having cats, snakes
etc. is this argument strong enough for vegetarians to decide not to own
such pets, or to choose pets that are vegetarian in nature to avoid this
ethical problem. Or do vegetarians see this as a non-problem? The pet
snake (say Ball Python) probably wouldn't be created (bred whatever) if
there was less demand for pet snakes. In other language - is the person who
chooses to buy a lizard who eats vegetables doing something ethically
preferrable to the person who buys a pet snake that lives on mice.



S. Maizlich
2006-02-20 19:58:15 EST
larrylook wrote:

> I recently posted a question about how pet owners feel about having dogs,
> cats or snakes that eat animals.

You're an idiot, and no one takes your questions
seriously. Among other evidence that you're an idiot
is your fuckwitted belief that the size of an animal
makes it more worthy of moral consideration. Thus, you
fuckwittedly believe a cow is worth more, morally, than
a mouse. But you're so fucking stupid that you can't
see you're completely fucked over by this illogic. If
a horse is morally worth more than a mouse, than a
Percheron or a Clydesdale must be morally worth more
than a quarterhorse, right? Right! And a Rottweiler
must be morally worth much more than a beagle. Yet
that plainly is absurd.

You are a total fuckwit, larry - not worty a thimbleful
of lukewarm piss.

Larrylook
2006-02-20 21:19:17 EST

> You're an idiot, and no one takes your questions
> seriously. Among other evidence that you're an idiot is your fuckwitted
> belief that the size of an animal makes it more worthy of moral
> consideration. Thus, you fuckwittedly believe a cow is worth more,
> morally, than a mouse. But you're so fucking stupid that you can't see
> you're completely fucked over by this illogic. If a horse is morally
> worth more than a mouse, than a Percheron or a Clydesdale must be morally
> worth more than a quarterhorse, right? Right! And a Rottweiler must be
> morally worth much more than a beagle. Yet that plainly is absurd.

I'd rather have a poor sense of logic than your foul mouth. I don't believe
size is the criteria. For example a mouses life is more valuble than a
large clam. Clams aren't very sentient or sapient. I've never known one to
carry out a valuable conversation. Mammals lives in general are more
valuable than mullusks. Anyway I'll decide which lives are valuable to me
and you will for you. Isn't that the way it works? We both believe there's
a heirarchy of values for animals - so we are really kindred spirits. I've
never claimed a human's life was less worthy than an oak tree or large
squid - so I don't know why you think I only value size.

It's really not clear to me that you, Rick, or Dutch feel there's any value
to trying to eat in an ethical manner. But surely there is - so you folks
are really making fools of yourselves on a daily basis. If you applied you
brains to something else besides clever insults and attacking kind,
concerned, and earnest folks you'd see this. Where is you're interest in
eating ethically? You seem to have none.

I'll make it simple so you can understand it. You can choose from two types
of diets which are equally tasty and healthy. Diet A kills many valuable
animals that are raised in a cruel environment. Diet B kills far fewer
animals. Which would you choose? I'll even tell you the answer. You'd
have no interest in one over the other. You'd rather come here and insult
nice people.

I still would like opinions from others as to whether or not it's more
ethical to buy a pet snake that eats vegetables over a snake species that
eats animals. It's and interesting question whether or not I have a good
understanding of values of animal lives - which I do. I would like to know
if people think it's unethical to have a carnivore for a pet. This could
make an interesting discussion without your personal attacks.




Larrylook
2006-02-20 21:26:06 EST

>
> You're an idiot, and no one takes your questions seriously.

There were 64 messages in the thread I started below. I'm sure you have read
them. So you have clearly been proven wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/z3bfh.



S. Maizlich
2006-02-20 21:37:06 EST
larrylook wrote:
>>You're an idiot, and no one takes your questions
>>seriously. Among other evidence that you're an idiot is your fuckwitted
>>belief that the size of an animal makes it more worthy of moral
>>consideration. Thus, you fuckwittedly believe a cow is worth more,
>>morally, than a mouse. But you're so fucking stupid that you can't see
>>you're completely fucked over by this illogic. If a horse is morally
>>worth more than a mouse, than a Percheron or a Clydesdale must be morally
>>worth more than a quarterhorse, right? Right! And a Rottweiler must be
>>morally worth much more than a beagle. Yet that plainly is absurd.
>
>
> I'd rather have a poor sense of logic

You do.


> I don't believe
> size is the criteria.

You're a fuckwitted and inept liar, larry. You've said
numerous times that a cow is "more valuable" than a
mouse, and the *only* criterion you could possibly use
to make that fuckwitted determination is that the cow
is larger. You also said some similar bullshit about
dogs vs. voles and shrews.

> For example a mouses life is more valuble than a
> large clam. Clams aren't very sentient or sapient. I've never known one to
> carry out a valuable conversation.

They do better than you.



> Mammals lives in general are more
> valuable than mullusks.

You have no rational basis for that conclusion. You're
an idiot.


> It's really not clear to me that you, Rick, or Dutch feel there's any value
> to trying to eat in an ethical manner.

You don't try to eat according to any "ethical" manner.
You merely try to feel good about yourself, in as
simpleminded, childlike way you can find to do so.

You're appallingly stupid.

Larrylook
2006-02-20 21:47:15 EST

>
>> Mammals lives in general are more valuable than mullusks.
>
> You have no rational basis for that conclusion. You're an idiot.

If you don't feel a chimpanzee is more valuable than a clam or a paramecium
than I really can't help you. Everyone else on the planet can see this.



S. Maizlich
2006-02-20 21:49:50 EST
larrylook wrote:

>>>Mammals lives in general are more valuable than mullusks.
>>
>>You have no rational basis for that conclusion. You're an idiot.
>
>
> If you don't feel a chimpanzee is more valuable than a clam or a paramecium
> than I really can't help you. Everyone else on the planet can see this.

WHY, stupid larry? What kind of fuckwit are you that
you think you can get away with "...it's just obvious"?

You can't answer, larry, and we all know it.

Why is a cow "more valuable" than a mouse, stupid
larry? You can't answer.

S. Maizlich
2006-02-20 22:13:33 EST
larrylook wrote:

>>>Mammals lives in general are more valuable than mullusks.
>>
>>You have no rational basis for that conclusion. You're an idiot.
>
>
> If you don't feel a chimpanzee is more valuable than a clam or a paramecium
> than I really can't help you.

larry, you stupid uneducated fuckwitted buffoon: is a
chimpanzee "more valuable" than a red colubus monkey?
If so, why? What the fuck do you mean, you fucking
moron, by "more valuable"?

P Darby
2006-02-21 03:06:45 EST

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:i66dncnkpL0c52fenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > I still would like opinions from others as to whether or not it's more
> ethical to buy a pet snake that eats vegetables over a snake species that
> eats animals. It's and interesting question whether or not I have a good
> understanding of values of animal lives - which I do. I would like to
> know if people think it's unethical to have a carnivore for a pet. This
> could make an interesting discussion without your personal attacks.



Please don't reply to him.
If you do he'll never go away.
Just ignore the little boy like the rest of us.



Larrylook
2006-02-21 09:46:59 EST

> larry, you stupid uneducated fuckwitted buffoon: is a
> chimpanzee "more valuable" than a red colubus monkey?
> If so, why? What the fuck do you mean, you fucking
> moron, by "more valuable"?

I mean that if you had to swerve on the road to avoid hitting a chimp
or a paramecium (you had to hit one) you'd hit the paramecium (or an
ant for that matter) - because the chimp's life is more valuable. I
think this makes perfects sense.How could anyone equate them?

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


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