e3da5f93   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.   
   port.football.college   
   XPost: rec.food.cooking   
      
   On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better.   
   >>   
   >>     You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you   
   should   
   >> either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate intent,   
   of   
   >> finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing nothing.   
   >>   
   >   
   >I've told you what my goals are. You've given me no reason to think   
   >that my strategy for pursuing these goals is irrational.   
   >   
   >> >> There are things you could do   
   >> >> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of   
   money but   
   >> >> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you   
   buy cage   
   >> >> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then   
   you'll be   
   >> >> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade   
   some people   
   >> >> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more   
   than   
   >> >> nothing.   
   >>   
   >> >Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to   
   >> >persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on   
   >> >them.   
   >>   
   >>     That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do   
   >> something you are still doing nothing.   
   >   
   >It reduces suffering.   
      
      Nope.   
      
   >> Doing the thing with cage free eggs I   
   >> suggested WOULD BE doing something,   
   >   
   >By donating to Vegan Outreach I am almost certainly helping to   
   >persuade some people to switch to cage free eggs.   
      
       How do you think that could possibly be the case?   
      
   >> but for years you have done nothing. You   
   >> should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something as   
   I've   
   >> been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but still   
   you do   
   >> nothing.   
   >>   
   >   
   >It is not true that I am doing nothing.   
      
       Your GOAL is to do nothing. Were you unaware of that? If not, you should   
   become aware of it. Here's a clue for you: People who want to help livestock   
   with their lifestyle become conscientious consumers of animal products. People   
   who want to do nothing for livestock with their lifestyles avoid animals   
   products instead. That's a basic you should really learn to comprehend, and if   
   you don't like your position then you should move on to a more AW approach as   
   I've been encourageing you to do for years.   
      
   >> >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from   
   >> >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.   
   >>   
   >>     LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging   
   >> veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid   
   >> enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately   
   >> dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY   
   kind of   
   >> egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely?   
   >>   
   >   
   >Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages   
   >people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism.   
      
       I'm in favor of that INSTEAD OF full veganism, not as a lame step in that   
   direction. Why go from contributing to decent conditions for livestock to doing   
   nothing, and do it deliberately???   
      
   >> >> >> And from the   
   >> >> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking   
   about   
   >> >> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from   
   their position   
   >> >> >> the cost could never enter into it.   
   >>   
   >> >> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the   
   >> >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision   
   >> >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how   
   >> >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the   
   >> >> >most economically efficient way possible.   
   >>   
   >> >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent   
   >> >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What   
   you do in   
   >> >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a   
   form of   
   >> >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.   
   >>   
   >> >And why would that be, exactly?   
   >>   
   >>     Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at   
   >> all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does.   
   That   
   >> one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out.   
   >>   
   >   
   >You're a fool.   
      
       You're the fool for being unable to appreciate it even after it has been   
   pointed out for you. It's your cognitive dissonance again IF you really can't   
   comprehend, trying to protect you from facts you don't want to believe even   
   though from my position they are so absurd as to be unbelievable.   
      
   >> >> So far it still appears that you   
   >> >> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you   
   could   
   >> >> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try   
   changing the   
   >> >> subject to humans and away from livestock.   
   >>   
   >> >You're an idiot.   
   >>   
   >>     What I said is a fact and IF you can't appreciate it that means YOU are   
   the   
   >> idiot, not me for presenting it.   
   >>   
   >   
   >What you said is laughable nonsense.   
      
       It's a fact you can't refute, but which you apparently hate and wish that   
   you could.   
      
   >> >> It undoubtedly depends on a number of things, none of which could cause   
   rice   
   >> >> milk to involve fewer deaths than grass raised cow milk imo.   
   >>   
   >> >How would you know that?   
   >>   
   >>     I know what my opinion is if that's what you're wondering. And I know   
   the   
   >> number of deaths depends on a number of things because it's obvious, like   
   the   
   >> number of animals that are in the rice fields for one thing. Whether they   
   use   
   >> chemicals and how much is another, whether they get the water from are   
   river or   
   >> creek of pump it from wells is yet another. There are more. Can you   
   appreciate   
   >> any?   
   >   
   >The question, which you predictably completely failed to answer, is   
   >how you would know what the comparison between rice milk and grass   
   >raised cow milk is.   
      
       So you can't appreciate any. Your cd really has kept you a clueless little   
   mind even after however many years of pretending to think about it all.   
      
   >>> I still have some hope that you might be able to rise up at   
   >> >> least a little bit at some point during your life and if so I'm curious   
   what the   
   >> >> result would be so I'd like to see it if it ever happens. Good luck if   
   you ever   
   >> >> try. Try to ignore Goo's attempts to drive you back down if you ever do   
   try   
   >> >> moving on a little.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)