If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Taking Animals Seriously
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:42:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
dh@. wrote On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:04:16 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: If we just do whatever we want anyway then what force does your "consideration" have? We're considering the difference between two different approaches to the situation: 1. my suggestion that we consider the animals' lives and provide them with decent lives and humane deaths attempting to make it a benefit for both us and them. Animal Welfare, not "The Logic of the Larder". Both terms apply. 2. your/"aras" suggestion that we not raise any animals for food, but simply kill wild animals. That's not my suggestion, please stop using gag your/"aras". That's up to you, not me. But if you ever stop defending them, I guess we won't have anything to discuss. As for humoring you with the /, I feel I'm being quite generous. My suggestion would deliberately provide decent lives for billions of animals. Animal Welfare provides decent lives for billions of animals, "The Logic of the Larder" provides them with nothing. Your/"aras" suggestion would not. The only advantage of "The Logic of the Larder" is that it helps you to feel justified in raising animals for food. The problem is, it's circular logic. There's no problem with it. In fact, it's going on out in reality all the time, and has been for about ten thousand years. It's pretty easy and obvious what "force", or type of result would be the outcome of my suggestion: decent lives for billions of animals. Animal Welfare provides decent lives for billions of animals, "The Logic of the Larder" does not. We both know decent AW is a necessary requirement for the LoL: "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Henry "ar" Salt Apparently you don't advocate that, How would you know? Oh that's right, you don't care about what I really advocate and what I don't, you just care about what you/"aras" want people to believe I advocate. I know what you advocate because I have listened to you for years. You advocate making a moral issue out of "providing life" for animals. You insert "decent" to throw off your critics You are a contemptible liar. You know just as I do that I consider quality of life to be an EXTREMELY significant aspect of the situation. That being the case, you should say so when other people lie about me and deny it. Instead you lie to me about myself. If you had even the slightest shred of decency you would be thouroughly ashamed of yourself, and rightly so. You're the liar. If you simply wished to see livestock provided with decent lives then you would not have been arguing with the rest of us for the past six years. The part where that doesn't make sense is: I've been encouraging it and you've been opposing the suggestion, with the alternative you've been supporting being "ar". So of course I should be arguing with you Goos in favor of decent AW, and the LoL, over the gross misnomer "ar". We would all be in agreement. No, you are promoting the idea that providing *life itself* is "a significant aspect of the situation" It *IS!*. And ONLY someone opposed to the life--or in this case billions of lives--would be dishonest or ignorant enough to deny it. which it is not, It only is NOT to those of you who are incapable of considering the animals. It's amusing that you don't seem able to understand this, but their lives necessarily ARE significant to those of us who are capable of appreciating lives of positive value, though they necessarily are NOT to those of you/"aras" who are incapable. Duh Dutch. Duh. and that veganism fails in this regard, LOL!!! It does, so why does it so offend you to see it pointed out? You should explain why it bothers you for me to point out that veg*nism will do nothing at all to help farm animals. which is also a non-issue. Whether it's a "non-issue" or not it's an aspect that should be taken into consideration, especially since there are people out there who would have us believe veg*nism somehow helps livestock. You in fact have tried harder to get me to believe that lie than any other "ara" I've encountered in the ngs. The animals' lives ARE an issue though, much as you/"aras" insist they are insignificant. Them not living is not significant, but when they do it is. You/"aras" could almost certainly never understand how or why apparently, but when they do, it is... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Taking Animals Seriously
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober ****wit, lied: On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:42:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober ****wit, lied: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:04:16 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: If we just do whatever we want anyway then what force does your "consideration" have? We're considering the difference between two different approaches to the situation: 1. my suggestion that we consider the animals' lives and provide them with decent lives and humane deaths attempting to make it a benefit for both us and them. Animal Welfare, not "The Logic of the Larder". Both terms apply. No, ****wit. Consideration for animal welfare does *not* oblige one to accept the ****wittery known as "Logic of the Larder", which is no logic at all, and which is *your* illogic. 2. your/"aras" suggestion that we not raise any animals for food, but simply kill wild animals. That's not my suggestion, please stop using gag your/"aras". That's up to you, not me. It's up to you, ****wit. You *choose* to write like ****, writing "you/aras" and beginning sentences with "But!" or "If!" You write ****, ****wit, because your thinking is ****, your education is ****, your brain is ****. My suggestion would deliberately provide decent lives for billions of animals. Animal Welfare provides decent lives for billions of animals, "The Logic of the Larder" provides them with nothing. Your/"aras" There it is again: ****wit's **** writing. I admit that I'm very weak in the area of presenting my ideas...I have as much 'right' to post my spew as everyone else does. ****wit - 11/30/1999 You haven't improved one bit in almost seven years, you colossal hemorrhoid. suggestion would not. The only advantage of "The Logic of the Larder" is that it helps you to feel justified in raising animals for food. The problem is, it's circular logic. There's no problem with it. It's stupid illogic. Anyone who believes in it is stupid. It's pretty easy and obvious what "force", or type of result would be the outcome of my suggestion: decent lives for billions of animals. Animal Welfare provides decent lives for billions of animals, "The Logic of the Larder" does not. We both know decent AW is a necessary requirement for animals that exist. It is not a *reason* for the animals to exist in the first place. You ****wit. Apparently you don't advocate that, How would you know? Oh that's right, you don't care about what I really advocate and what I don't, you just care about what you/"aras" want people to believe I advocate. I know what you advocate because I have listened to you for years. You advocate making a moral issue out of "providing life" for animals. You insert "decent" to throw off your critics You are a contemptible liar. You know just as I do that I consider quality of life to be an EXTREMELY significant aspect of the situation. That being the case, you should say so when other people lie about me and deny it. Instead you lie to me about myself. If you had even the slightest shred of decency you would be thouroughly ashamed of yourself, and rightly so. You're the liar. If you simply wished to see livestock provided with decent lives then you would not have been arguing with the rest of us for the past six years. The part where that doesn't make sense is: I've been encouraging it and you've been opposing the suggestion That's a lie. We would all be in agreement. No, you are promoting the idea that providing *life itself* is "a significant aspect of the situation" It *IS!*. It is NOT. It has no moral dimension to it at all. You are not doing something "nice" for animals by causing them to live. which it is not, It only is NOT to those of you who are incapable of considering the animals. Wrong. It is not to anyone who can think competently about it. You "think" you are doing something "nice" for farm animals by causing them to exist, ****wit, and you are wrong. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Taking Animals Seriously
dh@. wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:42:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: dh@. wrote On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:04:16 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: If we just do whatever we want anyway then what force does your "consideration" have? We're considering the difference between two different approaches to the situation: 1. my suggestion that we consider the animals' lives and provide them with decent lives and humane deaths attempting to make it a benefit for both us and them. Animal Welfare, not "The Logic of the Larder". Both terms apply. Agreed, one is a valid form of thinking, the other isn't. 2. your/"aras" suggestion that we not raise any animals for food, but simply kill wild animals. That's not my suggestion, please stop using gag your/"aras". That's up to you, not me. No, you type it. But if you ever stop defending them, I guess we won't have anything to discuss. I'm not defending "them", I am attacking a fallacious argument you attempt to use against them, there is a huge and obvious difference, although it's obviously too subtle a difference for you to grasp. As for humoring you with the /, I feel I'm being quite generous. You're just being an idiot. My suggestion would deliberately provide decent lives for billions of animals. Animal Welfare provides decent lives for billions of animals, "The Logic of the Larder" provides them with nothing. Your/"aras" suggestion would not. The only advantage of "The Logic of the Larder" is that it helps you to feel justified in raising animals for food. The problem is, it's circular logic. There's no problem with it. In fact, it's going on out in reality all the time, and has been for about ten thousand years. Yes, circular logic has probably been around for a long time, that does not validate it. It's pretty easy and obvious what "force", or type of result would be the outcome of my suggestion: decent lives for billions of animals. Animal Welfare provides decent lives for billions of animals, "The Logic of the Larder" does not. We both know decent AW is a necessary requirement for the LoL: "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Henry "ar" Salt So if it doesn't apply without "decent AW" then it does not apply to your lifestyle, which admittedly barely pays lip service to it. That makes you the same kind of hypocrite as a vegan. Apparently you don't advocate that, How would you know? Oh that's right, you don't care about what I really advocate and what I don't, you just care about what you/"aras" want people to believe I advocate. I know what you advocate because I have listened to you for years. You advocate making a moral issue out of "providing life" for animals. You insert "decent" to throw off your critics You are a contemptible liar. You know just as I do that I consider quality of life to be an EXTREMELY significant aspect of the situation. That being the case, you should say so when other people lie about me and deny it. Instead you lie to me about myself. If you had even the slightest shred of decency you would be thouroughly ashamed of yourself, and rightly so. You're the liar. If you simply wished to see livestock provided with decent lives then you would not have been arguing with the rest of us for the past six years. The part where that doesn't make sense is The Logic of Larder is what doesn't make sense, it never will. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Taking Animals Seriously
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Goo lied:
No Yes. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Taking Animals Seriously
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober ****wit, lied: On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Leif Erikson wrote: Both terms apply. No, ****wit. Consideration for animal welfare does *not* oblige one to accept the ****wittery known as "Logic of the Larder", which is no logic at all, and which is *your* illogic. Yes. No, ****wit, you ignorant filthy cracker. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Taking Animals Seriously | dh@. | Dogs - general | 1 | June 27th 06 01:32 AM |
Taking Animals Seriously | [email protected] | Dogs - general | 0 | June 23rd 06 08:46 PM |
Absolutely OT - PETA caught in the act | buglady | Dog health | 154 | July 2nd 05 12:56 AM |
Watch SPCA, they will hurt your animals | Noname | Dog breeds | 6 | May 13th 05 06:21 PM |