XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt
food.vegan.science
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
> wrote in message news:po8il75oju16vkc4ot4cust6bknqie2c96@4ax.com...
>> 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
>
>Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.
HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my stupidity, do
you have any clue at all?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
