Vegetarian Discussion: A Quiz For All Humans

A Quiz For All Humans
Posts: 194

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 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

·*@żżż.
2007-06-11 12:16:27 EST
For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.
To "aras" it is all pure exploitation *because* the animals are
killed deliberately by humans. There are some even more
extreme beliefs than that, going so far as to insist we never
give the lives of any creatures any consideration at all.

Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
we think about human infuence on animals? Should we
restrict some of them from our thinking, but allow ourselves
to consider others? Should we always restrict ourselves from
considering the lives of animals who are deliberately killed
by humans for some reason(s)? Should we allow ourselves
to give consideration to the lives of animals raised by humans,
provided they are not deliberately killed by humans? How
about wildlife?
_______________________________________________
Quiz:

Should we allow ourselves to consider the lives of all,
none, or some of the following examples when we think
about human influence on animals?

1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters

2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps

3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by electric fences
3d 2 year old pheasants killed by human hunters

4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by accidentally getting crushed
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter

(bonus questions:)
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain

Dutch
2007-06-11 17:10:33 EST
<·???@¿¿¿.> wrote
> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
> we think about human infuence on animals?

It's simple fuckwit

You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
into existence, that is a conflict of interest, self-serving circular
sophistry. The only moral implications towards livestock
animals are *obligations*.


The 2nd Coming Of Christ
2007-06-11 20:28:12 EST
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:10:33 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:

><\ufffd???@\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd.> wrote
>> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
>> we think about human infuence on animals?
>
>It's simple fuckwit
>
>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>into existence, that is a conflict of interest, self-serving circular
>sophistry. The only moral implications towards livestock
>animals are *obligations*.
>

you will never change his beliefs and he will never change your
beliefs, so both of you just shut the fuck up...

--

``Could it be that ... political theater is being staged, very much like the wrestling matches on TV, with the so-called neoconservatives and their so-called enemies, such as Pat Buchanan, loudly making public statements intended to convince the opponents of US foreign policy actions that these actions are the fault of 'the Jews'?'' --Jared Israel/Emperor's Clothes




Rupert
2007-06-11 20:40:23 EST
On Jun 12, 2:16 am, �???@���. wrote:
> For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
> of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
> that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
> raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
> the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
> gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.

What exactly is your evidence for this?


Dutch
2007-06-11 21:15:55 EST
"the 2nd coming of christ" <jesucristo2@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:466de879.295491023@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:10:33 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>><·???@¿¿¿.> wrote
>>> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
>>> we think about human infuence on animals?
>>
>>It's simple fuckwit
>>
>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>into existence, that is a conflict of interest, self-serving circular
>>sophistry. The only moral implications towards livestock
>>animals are *obligations*.
>>
>
> you will never change his beliefs and he will never change your
> beliefs, so both of you just shut the fuck up...

Funny, that's not what I imagined Jesus would say when he came back..


Dutch
2007-06-11 22:16:18 EST
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote

On Jun 12, 2:16 am, ·???@¿¿¿. wrote:
> For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
> of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
> that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
> raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
> the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
> gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.

What exactly is your evidence for this?


He doesn't have any, he's confused.


The 2nd Coming Of Christ
2007-06-12 01:29:51 EST
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:15:55 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:

>"the 2nd coming of christ" <jesucristo2@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:466de879.295491023@news.sysmatrix.net...
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:10:33 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>><\ufffd???@\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd.> wrote
>>>> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
>>>> we think about human infuence on animals?
>>>
>>>It's simple fuckwit
>>>
>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>into existence, that is a conflict of interest, self-serving circular
>>>sophistry. The only moral implications towards livestock
>>>animals are *obligations*.
>>>
>>
>> you will never change his beliefs and he will never change your
>> beliefs, so both of you just shut the fuck up...
>
>Funny, that's not what I imagined Jesus would say when he came back..
>

luckily, it's not up to your imagination to decide.

--

``Could it be that ... political theater is being staged, very much like the wrestling matches on TV, with the so-called neoconservatives and their so-called enemies, such as Pat Buchanan, loudly making public statements intended to convince the opponents of US foreign policy actions that these actions are the fault of 'the Jews'?'' --Jared Israel/Emperor's Clothes




Dutch
2007-06-12 03:01:39 EST
"the 2nd coming of christ" <jesucristo2@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:466e2e7b.313415728@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:15:55 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>>"the 2nd coming of christ" <jesucristo2@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:466de879.295491023@news.sysmatrix.net...
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:10:33 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><·???@¿¿¿.> wrote
>>>>> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
>>>>> we think about human infuence on animals?
>>>>
>>>>It's simple fuckwit
>>>>
>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>into existence, that is a conflict of interest, self-serving circular
>>>>sophistry. The only moral implications towards livestock
>>>>animals are *obligations*.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you will never change his beliefs and he will never change your
>>> beliefs, so both of you just shut the fuck up...
>>
>>Funny, that's not what I imagined Jesus would say when he came back..
>>
>
> luckily, it's not up to your imagination to decide.

Actually it is.



The 2nd Coming Of Christ
2007-06-12 09:35:18 EST
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:01:39 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:

>"the 2nd coming of christ" <jesucristo2@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:466e2e7b.313415728@news.sysmatrix.net...
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:15:55 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"the 2nd coming of christ" <jesucristo2@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>news:466de879.295491023@news.sysmatrix.net...
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:10:33 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><\ufffd???@\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd.> wrote
>>>>>> Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
>>>>>> we think about human infuence on animals?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's simple fuckwit
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>>into existence, that is a conflict of interest, self-serving circular
>>>>>sophistry. The only moral implications towards livestock
>>>>>animals are *obligations*.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you will never change his beliefs and he will never change your
>>>> beliefs, so both of you just shut the fuck up...
>>>
>>>Funny, that's not what I imagined Jesus would say when he came back..
>>>
>>
>> luckily, it's not up to your imagination to decide.
>
>Actually it is.
>
>

ok, you caught me, i'm not really jesus...

--

``Could it be that ... political theater is being staged, very much like the wrestling matches on TV, with the so-called neoconservatives and their so-called enemies, such as Pat Buchanan, loudly making public statements intended to convince the opponents of US foreign policy actions that these actions are the fault of 'the Jews'?'' --Jared Israel/Emperor's Clothes




The 2nd Coming Of Christ
2007-06-12 09:39:09 EST
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:16:18 GMT, "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote:

>"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>On Jun 12, 2:16 am, \ufffd???@\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd. wrote:
>> For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
>> of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
>> that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
>> raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
>> the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
>> gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.
>
>What exactly is your evidence for this?
>
>
>He doesn't have any, he's confused.
>

all three of you just shut the fuck up... i'm jesus... obey my
orders now...

--

``Could it be that ... political theater is being staged, very much like the wrestling matches on TV, with the so-called neoconservatives and their so-called enemies, such as Pat Buchanan, loudly making public statements intended to convince the opponents of US foreign policy actions that these actions are the fault of 'the Jews'?'' --Jared Israel/Emperor's Clothes



Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


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