b0ab01b3   
   XPost: alt.slack, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.satanism   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
      
   On Mon, 4 May 2009 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT), Pisces  wrote:   
      
   >On May 4, 7:59 am, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:54:07 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >> > wrote   
   >> >> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"   
   >> >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >>>Blah blah   
   >>   
   >> >>>Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is   
   >> >>>why   
   >> >>>I only buy free range eggs and chickens.   
   >>   
   >> >>    You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those   
   >> >> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever   
   >> >> doing so.   
   >>   
   >> >That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.   
   >>   
   >>     It must be, since you perceive it as being one even though I didn't   
   >> make any comments about whether it is good or bad. From the way   
   >> I worded it the criticism could be towards people who DO deliberately   
   >> contribute to decent lives of positive value for livestock. Since you   
   >> think it's wrong for me to encourage people to think about doing that,   
   >> you certainly should be opposed to seeing anyone actually DO it!   
   >> Since you insist that it's in some mysterious unimaginable and   
   >> unexplainable way ethically superior to oppose consideration of the   
   >> animals' lives, you certainly should feel that trying to avoid contributing   
   >> to them entirely is in some mysterious unimaginable and unexplainable   
   >> way ethically superior to deliberately contributing to them.   
   >>   
   >> >>>Cows and sheep are treated pretty well and get a pretty slackfull life   
   >> >>>before they are culled for my consumption.   
   >>   
   >> >>>Everyone needs to like just be nice and stuff and stop getting so caught   
   up   
   >> >>>in "human moraility" which is very anti-animal morality.   
   >>   
   >> >>    I believe it's very safe to say that advocates of the misnomer   
   >> >>are the most anti-animal people on this planet.   
   >>   
   >>     Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid   
   >> criticism of eliminationists too?   
   >>   
   >> >>>People like PETA honestly believe that humans are the only rightfull   
   moral   
   >> >>>agents in this world who are capable of making a "correct" decision   
   >>   
   >> >>    Not really. They want you to BELIEVE they are, but in reality   
   >> >>they are just the opposite. They want to eliminate domestic   
   >> >>animals, which would eliminate all human decision making in   
   >> >>that area of course. Well how about wildlife? Humans are the   
   >> >>only beings even capable of trying to kill humanely, but   
   >> >>misnomer advocates would leave wildlife population management   
   >> >>entirely up to non-human agents that are completely unable to   
   >> >>even attempt to be humane. So when we look at it in a little   
   >> >>bit of detail we see that's just another incorrect interpetation   
   >> >>these dishonest people have somehow managed to trick other   
   >> >>people into having.   
   >>   
   >>     Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid   
   >> criticism of eliminationists too?   
   >>   
   >> >>>while   
   >> >>>refusing to respect how insignificant humans are in the universe and take   
   >> >>>heed of how the universe actually works.   
   >>   
   >> >>    Starvation, disease and non-human predators cause much   
   >> >>more suffering to their prey than human hunters do, and especially   
   >> >>to baby animals and pregnant mothers. Yet workings like that don't   
   >> >>matter in the least to eliminationists.   
   >>   
   >>     Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid   
   >> criticism of eliminationists too?   
   >>   
   >> >>>PETA are like the old colonial powers of old who conqured to "liberate"   
   >>   
   >> >>    Their terrorist heros undoubtedly cause more suffering, not   
   >> >>less, by their attacks on fur farms and medical research. So   
   >> >>to sum it up: These misnomer advocates wouldn't provide any   
   >> >>rights or anything else for any animals, but they would and do   
   >> >>cause more suffering by things they do and things they would   
   >> >>like to do.   
   >>   
   >>     Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid   
   >> criticism of eliminationists too?   
   >   
   >don't you vegan creeps get it,   
      
       "Dutch" is the eliminationists, and I'm opposed to it.   
      
   >alt.slack is an saucer cult waiting for   
   >aliens to burn everything.   
      
       Why do it that way?   
      
   >Hell at this point I would support cannibalism if it was prepared   
   >correctly. Laser beam blackened vegan might be tasty for all I know.   
      
       I like meat, and eat whatever types of animal and their guts,   
   except I don't want to eat balls or eyeballs unless they're ground   
   up in something, and I don't want to eat human flesh just because   
   I have a thing against that.   
      
   >Turns out herbivores make the best meat in the rest of the animal   
   >kingdom,   
      
       It's the safest. Omnivores like chicken and pigs need to be   
   cooked well or they can make you damn sick, and probably   
   even kill you. I've gotten very sick from both.   
      
   >i bet they do in the human race as well.   
      
       Eating human meat could probably make you even more   
   sick than chicken and pork.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)