Vegetarian Discussion: They Die So We Can Eat Rice...

They Die So We Can Eat Rice...
Posts: 24

Report Abuse

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

Page:  Previous  1 2 3   (First | Last)

D*@.
2006-09-05 12:38:29 EST
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:28:33 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:vcopf25jlf6l8j6c2jnkm6d4uqqu3btqq3@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:27:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:smojf2hk7k56r1qo54l4nab3atan2sessd@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" <andysharpe@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Andy comments:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not interested in rice....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the
>>>>>> rice. People get many servings of meat from the
>>>>>> death of a steer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on
>>>>>vole
>>>>>populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If a grass raised steer provides
>>>>>> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000
>>>>>> death per serving.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a lie,
>>>>
>>>> It's a fact,
>>>
>>>It's a lie.
>>
>> How many is it then? Is it more than 3/1000? How many is it
>> for 1000 servings of rice?
>
> I don't know and I'm not claiming to know.

As usual you have no clue what you think you're trying
to talk about.

>>>> though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it
>>>> promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination,
>>>> ie: AR.
>>>
>>>I'm not an ARA,
>>
>> "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
>> killing them." - Dutch
>>
>> "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist." - Dutch
>>
>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS"." - Dutch
>>
>> "I am an animal rights believer." - Dutch
>
>Doesn't it strike you as unethical to present quotes as contemporaneous from
>a time several years ago when you know I presented myself as an animal
>rights advocate?

You amusingly though contemptibly have no clue what you think
you're trying to talk about, or how you think you disagree with yourself.

>Not to mention desperate? You're sounding more like Derek
>all the time.

LOL! It's not desperate to point out that you have no idea how you
think you disagree with yourself.

>>>and I hate it because it's a lie.
>>>
>>>>> see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat
>>>>>other than beef.
>>>>
>>>> Andy mentioned steak.
>>>
>>>How convenient, I am mentioning the rest of the livestock,
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because I like demonstrating what a shallow liar you are.

You have yet to do so, so you again have no clue what
you think you're trying to talk about.

>>>the other 99% of the animals, who all eat farmed crops.
>>>
>>>>>> In contrast to that, there may
>>>>>> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two
>>>>>> of rice.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't say that with any certainty.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I can.
>>>
>>>No you can't. You're just firing blanks.
>>>
>>>> You "aras" just can't understand how there could be.
>
>I can see how there could be.
>
>>>That's not certainty.
>>
>> It's certain that there may be.
>
>LOL!

Apparently you went from being able to "see how there could be"
to being unable to see it remarkably quickly, even for a flake like you.

>>>>>> On top of that the cattle only live because
>>>>>> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only
>>>>>> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes
>>>>>> to their lives.
>>>>>
>>>>>The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of the
>>>>>rich
>>>>>crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives" then
>>>>>commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef.
>>>>
>>>> Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides
>>>> and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an
>>>> area, I can't believe your claim.
>>>
>>>Wildlife like voles, frogs and lizards are prolific. You said yourself
>>>that
>>>many more are killed in the production of rice, that means *necessarily*
>>>that many must also "get to experience life". You can't have it both ways.
>>>If it's a positive that grass-fed cattle "get to experience life" before
>>>we
>>>kill them then it must also be a positive that field mice get to
>>>experience
>>>life before we kill them too.
>>
>> Wildlife get to experience life in pastures too, but in pastures they
>> aren't killed by plows, harvesters and *icides nearly as often as in rice
>> fields. Why do you want people to think they are?
>
>I don't,

You do.

>I want you to see the absurdity of your livestock "getting to
>experience life" argument.

They do.

>>>>>You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't.
>>>
>>>Yes you do. Your whole approach is a sham.
>>
>> Why do you want people to think that considering lives of positive
>> value for livestock "is a sham"?
>
>People who have heard the LoL already think it's a sham, and have dismissed
>it, and you. I am just trying to get the fact through YOUR head.

I'm well aware of the fact that you "aras" can't understand much less
appreciate the fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, and
have been pointing the fact out to you the entire time...even during the
periods when you alternated between pretending to understand that you
could and admitting that you could not:

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch"

<*h@.> pointed out:

> You can't explain why life of a positive value is of no benefit to
> you, or to animals.

Why should I, it's not what I'm saying.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"some mystical "value to the animals"" - "Dutch"
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch"

<*h@.> pointed out:

> Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of
> anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's
> possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS?

I've already said that it's possible, in the quote you keep asking me about.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that
means," - "Dutch"
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch"

<*h@.> wrote:

> Quality of life determines whether or not life has positive value to animals,
> even though you've proven yourself unable to understand that.

What's to understand?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You cluelessly flop back and forth pretending to understand, then admitting
you have no clue, all the while hilariously pretending that you could possibly
have something to "teach" about this issue you don't have a clue about.

The ONLY thing you "aras" are rock solidly consistent about is the FACT
that you have absolutely no consideration for the animals themselves. The
pureness of your selfishness prevents you from giving their lives any
consideration at all.

Dutch
2006-09-05 14:28:19 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:tv9rf21h1c4ca7jdivufaa5qu5pp2o3g3t@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:28:33 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:vcopf25jlf6l8j6c2jnkm6d4uqqu3btqq3@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:27:10 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:smojf2hk7k56r1qo54l4nab3atan2sessd@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" <andysharpe@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Andy comments:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not interested in rice....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the
>>>>>>> rice. People get many servings of meat from the
>>>>>>> death of a steer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on
>>>>>>vole
>>>>>>populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a grass raised steer provides
>>>>>>> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000
>>>>>>> death per serving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a lie,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fact,
>>>>
>>>>It's a lie.
>>>
>>> How many is it then? Is it more than 3/1000? How many is it
>>> for 1000 servings of rice?
>>
>> I don't know and I'm not claiming to know.
>
> As usual you have no clue what you think you're trying
> to talk about.

As usual I try to avoid making claims that I can't prove.

>>>>> though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it
>>>>> promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination,
>>>>> ie: AR.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not an ARA,
>>>
>>> "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
>>> killing them." - Dutch
>>>
>>> "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist." - Dutch
>>>
>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS"." - Dutch
>>>
>>> "I am an animal rights believer." - Dutch
>>
>>Doesn't it strike you as unethical to present quotes as contemporaneous
>>from
>>a time several years ago when you know I presented myself as an animal
>>rights advocate?
>
> You amusingly though contemptibly have no clue what you think
> you're trying to talk about, or how you think you disagree with yourself.

Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your
opponent categorically rejects?

>>Not to mention desperate? You're sounding more like Derek
>>all the time.
>
> LOL! It's not desperate to point out that you have no idea how you
> think you disagree with yourself.

That was another fuckwit statement.

>>>>and I hate it because it's a lie.
>>>>
>>>>>> see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat
>>>>>>other than beef.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy mentioned steak.
>>>>
>>>>How convenient, I am mentioning the rest of the livestock,
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Because I like demonstrating what a shallow liar you are.
>
> You have yet to do so, so you again have no clue what
> you think you're trying to talk about.

I do so repeatedly and will continue.

>>>>the other 99% of the animals, who all eat farmed crops.
>>>>
>>>>>>> In contrast to that, there may
>>>>>>> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two
>>>>>>> of rice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can't say that with any certainty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I can.
>>>>
>>>>No you can't. You're just firing blanks.
>>>>
>>>>> You "aras" just can't understand how there could be.
>>
>>I can see how there could be.
>>
>>>>That's not certainty.
>>>
>>> It's certain that there may be.
>>
>>LOL!
>
> Apparently

Apparently you're hopeless.

>>>>>>> On top of that the cattle only live because
>>>>>>> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only
>>>>>>> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes
>>>>>>> to their lives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>rich
>>>>>>crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives"
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides
>>>>> and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an
>>>>> area, I can't believe your claim.
>>>>
>>>>Wildlife like voles, frogs and lizards are prolific. You said yourself
>>>>that
>>>>many more are killed in the production of rice, that means *necessarily*
>>>>that many must also "get to experience life". You can't have it both
>>>>ways.
>>>>If it's a positive that grass-fed cattle "get to experience life" before
>>>>we
>>>>kill them then it must also be a positive that field mice get to
>>>>experience
>>>>life before we kill them too.
>>>
>>> Wildlife get to experience life in pastures too, but in pastures they
>>> aren't killed by plows, harvesters and *icides nearly as often as in
>>> rice
>>> fields. Why do you want people to think they are?
>>
>>I don't,
>
> You do.

I don't, I have no reason to. WIldlife, like livestock, happen to be living
creatures, their lives per se are not relevant to this issue.

>>I want you to see the absurdity of your livestock "getting to
>>experience life" argument.
>
> They do.

So do children of abusive parents "get to experience life", does that factor
into our moral judgment of those parents in any way? No, because a being
"getting to experience life" does not entitle anyone else to a moral
argument. It is simply a "fact of life".

>>>>>>You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I don't.
>>>>
>>>>Yes you do. Your whole approach is a sham.
>>>
>>> Why do you want people to think that considering lives of positive
>>> value for livestock "is a sham"?
>>
>>People who have heard the LoL already think it's a sham, and have
>>dismissed
>>it, and you. I am just trying to get the fact through YOUR head.
>
> I'm well aware <snip>

No you're not "well aware" at all, you're utterly blinded by this phony
argument, along with pride and stubborness.



D*@.
2006-09-06 11:47:20 EST
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked:

>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your
>opponent categorically rejects?

You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the fuck
up about it!

Dutch
2006-09-06 16:01:06 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:28:19 -0700, "Dutch" asked:
>
>>Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your
>>opponent categorically rejects?
>
> You Goos do it to me all the time. Walk the walk or shut the fuck
> up about it!

There's nothing that you have said in the past that you now categorically
reject which I quote as your current position. It has always been your basic
position since you were a stupid kid that we do livestock animals a favor by
giving them the chance to experience life. Your words today convey that same
message when you say you consider their lives as well as their deaths. As
soon as you categorically reject that basic position I will immediately stop
attributing it to you, and I will congratulate you and toast to your good
health. I will NOT quote a position as yours once you reject it, I consider
that to be the anathema of rational debate, a classic strawman. Your whole
approach is littered with equivocations, strawmen, evasions, and various
other attempts to cloud the issue.


Page:  Previous  1 2 3   (First | Last)


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