XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.
port.football.college
XPost: rec.food.cooking
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:40:06 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:20:13 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:00:36 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/17/2012 4:14 AM, Bryan wrote:
>>>> On Oct 17, 5:51 am, Your smrat ® wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 17, 5:03 am, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 6:47 am, Antonio Veranos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Rupert, rupertmccal...@yahoo.com]
>>>>>>> [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
>>>>>> you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
>>>>> Vegans? Nevermind then.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.
>>>
>>>I think you meant to put it in "proper case", i.e., treat it as a proper
>>>noun requiring capitalization of the first letter. I don't consider it
>>>to be a proper noun, but interestingly, the first historical uses of the
>>>word generally had it in proper case, as it was part of the name of an
>>>organization: The Vegan Society.
>>
>> What has changed about it, Goo?
>>
>>>I almost always put it in normal case but inside quotes of derision,
>>>i.e. "vegan", to show my complete contempt and disgust for the word.
>>>It's an ugly word describing an ugly, sanctimonious and morally bankrupt
>>>set of beliefs.
>>
>> Yet you agree with "ethical" veg*ns about a number of significant things
>>Goober, like:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"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
>>
>>"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "consideration" to be given." - 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
>>
>>"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
>>
>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - 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
>>
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"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
>>
>>""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't mean anything." - Goo
>>
>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
>>"pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>
>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not
>>a benefit." - 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
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>Note to anyone not familiar with Goo: Sometimes Goo says that such quotes of
his
>>are all true statements and other times he lies that his quotes are not his
>>quotes, but the consistency is that he can *never* explain how he wants
people
>>to think he disagrees with himself about any of them meaning that Goo agrees
>>with himself about every bit of it.
>>
>>Note to Goo: As always Goob if you think you finally figured out how you
think
>>you disagree with yourself about any of your quotes, then try saying which
>>one(s) and how you think you disagree. If/When you can't Goo it will remain
>>clear that you do agree with yourself about all your above quotes so you
have no
>>reason to object to (ie: bitch about) them being presented.
>
>No, Goo.
LOL! Yes Gooberdoodle, you inept puling wuss. Your inability to figure out
how you think you disagree with yourself DOES make it clear that you do agree
with yourself about all your above quotes you stupid Goober, so you have no
reason to object to (ie: bitch about) them being presented.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
