XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.religion.hindu
XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.politics
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:58:25 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>
> wrote in message news:73re77pjl6l8qebgqlqcjafggob3cvikje@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in message news:0kv477hjku1c7pnq2ffq2q3b1gq9tnu3nd@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>news:47dv67578esv99c7lu8b4amr7iuqiftsju@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I
>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be
>>>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to
>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and
>>>>>>>> surely
>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such
>>>>>> facts
>>>>>> amusing
>>>>>> somehow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc
>>>>>> large
>>>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>>>
>>>>>You make some good points here.
>>>>
>>>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>>>
>>>I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your idiotic
>>>and
>>>misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock]
>>>campaign,
>>>unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people you
>>>oppose.
>>
>> Like what?
>
>The efforts of PeTA have improved the lives of millions and millions of
>animals.
Which animals, and to what extent did their efforts improve them? Remember
that when you can't provide any examples, we will still have no examples.
>Just because they wish those animals were not raised in the first
>place, you refuse to applaud their efforts. In other words you actually
>care nothing about the suffering of animals,
I take the suffering AND the positive aspects into consideration.
Eliminationists only consider the suffering without considering the positive
aspects for any animals involved with raising livestock. Not for wildlife, and
certainly not for the livestock they dishonestly pretend to care about.
>something you have demonstrated
>many times. All you care about is convincing people to get on board your
>"appreciation" train, an idea that does not help a single animal.
If PeTA went at it with a different approach, and encourage people to eat
particular animal products because they provide decent lives for the animals,
it
would be an entirely different thing. Then more emphesis and interest would be
on providing decent lives for livestock and people wouldn't feel the need to
wipe them out. That would be IF they cared about the animals, which we can see
they obviously do not. They/You are OPPOSED to caring about the animals as you
demonstrate consistently. The situation is never going to change. Only you
eliminationists COULD change from promoting elimination to promoting giving a
shit, but you don't and don't want anyone else to. That's because you don't
care
at all about the animals. You're only care is about the fact that it disturbs
you because other people eat meat, and that's ALL you people are capable of
really caring about. If you cared about the animals you would encourage
appreciation for lives of positive value even if you yourself were honest about
not contributing to any...you would still approve of those who do. I know from
examples from personal experience. For example I don't eat muton, but I can
appreciate lives of positive value for sheep even so, just as I can for types
of
animals I do consume. The ONLY reason to oppose appreciation, is because you
are
opposed to the lives themselves.
Dooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>>>>>stick to them.
>>>>
>>>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you
>>>> hate.
>>>> It's
>>>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
>>>> against
>>>> the misnomer.
>>>
>>>Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/ "misnomer".
>>
>> You did openly when you first began posting
>
>That's not the issue and you know it.
Why you began to lie is a big issue to both of us, but in different ways.
You wanted to be like Goo, so he told you to start lying about your true
position. He let you know that no one who is in favor of AW over elimination
and
has good reasons to feel that way, could respect the oppinion of
eliminationists. So he advised you to just start lying and say that you're in
favor of AW, and that you began eating meat, in an attempt to get true AW
supporting meat consumers to respect you. While that was going on Goo made a
point of chasing off all of the true AW supporters that he could, so now I'm
the
only one left. Now I'm the only audience you and Goo who are just dishonest
eliminationists have left, and I know you're eliminationists. So you and Goo
still denying it at this point is about as stupid as it gets.
>>, and almost always have in posts
>> you make to me.
>
>That is a lie. I oppose your phony and ill-conceived "appreciation"
>bullshit, that's all.
>
>> The quotes I have of you acting like you had some appreciation
>> before the unlearning were mostly directed at other people if I remember
>> correctly.
>
>You need to stop mangling quotes from years ago to support your
>misconception and listen to what people are telling you now.
In case you hadn't noticed, I always try to get you to try to back up your
shit, and usually spend most of my time challenging you to try, pointing out
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
