05e80073
XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.
port.football.college
XPost: rec.food.cooking
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
wrote:
>On Oct 23, 11:25 pm, Goo 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.
Challenge them to present their supposed opposition if you want to defeat
them again. I've challenged them so many times by now I know they can't produce
any examples, but maybe you could coax some sort of an attempt out of them.
Probably not because I don't believe they have it in them, but it would be good
fun to see them maundering and puling around trying to make an attempt if you
could get the pitiful wusses to try. They've been boasting about being misnomer
opponents all these years, yet when challenged to present their opposition they
never have been able to. They just try to wuss out of it in whatever pathetic
way(s) they can think of.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
