A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dogs - general
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Taking Animals Seriously



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 26th 06, 03:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.birds
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Taking Animals Seriously

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:42:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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  
Old June 26th 06, 04:08 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.birds
Leif Erikson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old June 26th 06, 08:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.birds
Dutch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Taking Animals Seriously


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:42:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] 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  
Old June 27th 06, 04:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.birds
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Taking Animals Seriously

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Goo lied:

No


Yes.
  #5  
Old June 27th 06, 05:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.birds
Leif Erikson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Taking Animals Seriously [email protected] 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unregistered)
Copyright 2004-2019 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.