XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   food.vegan.science   
      
   On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote in message news:1g5dl71ri9t5mok0io0hg6uj9sapuoktm4@4ax.com...   
   >> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill   
   >>>>> *any*   
   >>>>> animals.  What do you have to say to him, Woopert?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> He is incorrect.   
   >>>   
   >>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I   
   >>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is   
   >>>/contaminated/   
   >>>with it.   
   >>   
   >>  · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals  [...]   
   >   
   >See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.   
      
   "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".   
   "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any   
   quality for farm animals:  they don't want there to be farm   
   animals." - Goo   
      
   "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing   
   you ever wrote." - Goo   
      
   "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo   
      
   "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo   
      
   "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting   
   to experience life" - Goo   
      
   >See how he ALWAYS does.   
      
   ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,   
   Fuckwit.  They want everyone to be "vegan", which would   
   mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's   
   an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo   
      
   ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.   
   And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would   
   live in bad conditions." - Goo   
      
   ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo   
      
   "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral   
   consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing   
   of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral   
   consideration, and gets it." - Goo   
      
   ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of   
   their deaths" - Goo   
      
   "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"   
   (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for   
   killing them." - Goo   
      
   "When considering your food choices ethically, assign   
   ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to   
   eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo   
      
   >See how you continue to insist that he a  "eliminationist".   
      
   ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of   
   their deaths" - Goo   
      
   "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal   
   ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the   
   moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo   
      
   "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude   
   than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo   
      
   "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to   
   experience life" deserves no consideration when asking   
   whether or not it is moral to kill them.  Zero." - Goo   
      
   "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing   
   of the animals erases all of it." - Goo   
      
   >See how that shows what a fool you are.   
      
   "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the   
   animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from   
   killing them." - Goo   
      
   "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo   
      
   "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to   
   exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)