05e80073   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.   
   port.football.college   
   XPost: rec.food.cooking   
   From: bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com   
      
   On Oct 23, 11:25 pm, George Plimpton  wrote:   
   > On 10/23/2012 5:08 PM, Dutch wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > dh@. wrote:   
   > >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >   
   > >>> dh@. wrote:   
   > >>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >   
   > >>>>> dh@. wrote:   
   > >>>>>>     The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some   
   > >>>>>> females are for   
   > >>>>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the   
   > >>>>>> most out of   
   > >>>>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated   
   > >>>>>> decently there   
   > >>>>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal   
   > >>>>>> calf, afaWk.   
   >   
   > >>>>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives   
   > >>>>> are   
   > >>>>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider   
   > >>>>> themselves   
   > >>>>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the   
   > >>>>> Larder"   
   > >>>>> is circular and illegitimate.   
   >   
   > >>>>       Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY   
   > >>>> called that by   
   > >>>> eliminationists.   
   >   
   > >>> That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the   
   > >>> Larder argument.   
   >   
   > >>      No true antis have challenged it.   
   >   
   > > That's a lie, they were all true antis, including Ball and me.   
   >   
   > >   Two said they didn't agree but gave no   
   > >> reaon at all. One person claiming to be an anti presented mostly if   
   > >> not entirely   
   > >> eliminationist arguments against it. In contrast to that, ALL of the   
   > >> people who   
   > >> honestly supported AW like didderot, the girl from the ag college, and   
   > >> the woman   
   > >> from an AW organization up north have all agreed that the lives should   
   > >> be taken   
   > >> into consideration.   
   >   
   > > No they didn't. You don't appear capable of grasping why "considering   
   > > their lives" is meaningless drivel.   
   >   
   > >>>> People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of   
   > >>>> taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of   
   > >>>> livestock into consideration.   
   >   
   > >>> x=x that is true, but not worth mentioning.   
   >   
   > >>>> Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan   
   > >>>> larder is ethically superior to those of  people who contribute to   
   > >>>> the lives of   
   > >>>> livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the   
   > >>>> larder   
   > >>>> aspect. Go:   
   >   
   > >>> I don't think that, and livestock's "lives" contribute nothing to that   
   > >>> decision. You think the "Larder" argument strengthens your moral   
   > >>> position as a consumer of animal products. You're wrong, it doesn't, it   
   > >>> makes it weaker.   
   >   
   > >>      Only to people who favor elimination over AW. You just can't get   
   > >> over it   
   > >> even IF!!!!!!! you honestly feel that you have.   
   >   
   > > Wrong, I don't favor "elimination", nor does Ball and you know it.   
   >   
   > He does know it.  Fuckwit knows that for certain.   
      
      
   Ease up, you two goos. You're getting hysterical.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)