d2dc299e   
   XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.   
   port.football.college   
   XPost: rec.food.cooking   
   From: rupertmccallum@yahoo.com   
      
   On Oct 24, 12:53 am, dh@. wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Why do you think that?   
      
   > >> 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?   
   >   
      
   It's obvious. Not everyone who read the leaflets will give up eggs   
   completely. Of those who don't give up eggs completey, some will at   
   least take the step of switching to cage free eggs.   
      
   > >> 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?   
      
   It's nonsense.   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Taking steps to reduce the amount of suffering experienced by   
   livestock is not "doing nothing" for livestock.   
      
   > >> >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???   
   >   
      
   The rationale for going completely vegan is that it is the best way to   
   reduce suffering.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > >> >> >> 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.   
   >   
      
   If I decided that I wanted to "contribute to decent lives for   
   livestock", I would have to weigh up any opportunity costs of doing   
   so, in particular opportunity costs that would prevent me from making   
   the outcome better in other ways. Such considerations clearly *do*   
   "enter into it". You are a fool for thinking otherwise.   
      
   > >> >> 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's obvious nonsense. You have no rational grounds at all for   
   thinking I hate livestock, just because I take into account the   
   interests of other beings as well. Do *you* hate livestock? If not,   
   then why don't you yourself put into practice the plan that you   
   suggest?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)