XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc
XPost: rec.pets.birds
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:01:01 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>
> wrote in message news:nfgl925pvkn5e24mj8v0hnksl7d0hc8aru@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:31:41 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> wrote in message news:k9vd925al4omec7nfihipcop6103po2gs0@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:49:15 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:01:39 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:57:16 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You get no moral credit for causing animals to come into existence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It clearly matters to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain why you think people deserve more credit for abstaining
>>>>>> from animal products, than they would for deliberately contributing
>>>>>> to what they consider to be lives of positive value for livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think that. That is an AR/vegan belief which I do not share. My
>>>>>view
>>>>>is that there is no measurable moral distinction to be made between
>>>>>abstaining from animal products and "deliberately contributing to what
>>>>>they
>>>>>consider to be lives of positive value for livestock"
>>>>
>>>> That's because you're not capable of considering the animals, as I've
>>>> been pointing out for years. Not only are you incapable of doing it
>>>> yourself,
>>>> but you are insanely and maniacally opposed to seeing anyone else do it.
>>>
>>>If you don't breed livestock there is no animals to consider.
>>
>> That may be the stupidest thing I've read from you. Whether it is or
>> not, it is a completely stupid statement which only serves to reinforce
>> the fact I've been pointing out for years that you're not capable of
>> considering the animals.
>
>If we don't raise livestock there are no animals to consider.
>
>>>>>to use your term. It
>>>>>is a phantom issue raised by animal extremists. The rational response to
>>>>>that argument is to dispel it, not engage it.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY if you are incapable of considering the animals, as is the case
>>>> with you/"aras".
>>>
>>>No, always.
>>
>> ONLY if you are incapable of considering the animals, as I pointed out.
>
>No, always.
LOL!!! You moron, it only seems that way to you because YOU can't do it.
I can. Anyone who is capable of considering the animals can, and in fact
doing so is a necessary part of it, you poor ignorant fool!
>It's always the right response to dispel arguments by
>extremists, not acknowledge them and attempt to turn them upside down.
>
>
>>>>>>>You have frequently attacked veganism for failing
>>>>>>>to support the bringing of livestock into the world, denying those
>>>>>>>animals
>>>>>>>life that they would have had. If that is a moral failing in vegans,
>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>you must consider bringing those animals into the world (and
>>>>>>>"providing
>>>>>>>them
>>>>>>>with decent lives") a moral credit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You/"aras" can't understand when it is and when it's not, nor
>>>>>> can you/"they" understand how life could have positive value
>>>>>> to any domestic animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't you think we owe animals we raise for food decent lives?
>>>>
>>>> Not really. But I do believe we're pathetic assholes when we don't.
>>>
>>>That's contradictory, it's saying the same thing. We *owe them* decent
>>>care.
>>
>> How do we "owe" them anything? Who decides, and where is it
>> written?
>
>You just expressed it, "I do believe we're pathetic assholes when we don't."
>Why would we be pathetic assholes if we didn't owe it to them? In fact we do
>owe livestock decent treatment, almost everyone can see this intuitively,
So it is not a decided or discovered fact, but it's just something that you
made up and claim as fact, and then hilariously expect everyone else to
agree with. LOL...that's what you have been doing repeatedly for years,
and still keep doing.
>as you just expressed.
Showing consideration is not an obligation. It's a couresy that some of
us are capable of and others of you/"them" are not, as I keep pointing out
because you keep providing examples of it.
>>>>>If so, since when do we get credit for simply repaying what we owe?
>>>>
>>>> You give your imaginary browny points when you want, and
>>>> withhold them when you want. I've asked you countless times
>>>> why you present your browny points for the elimination objective,
>>>> yet violently snatch them away from deliberately providing decent
>>>> lives for livestock, ie the LoL, ie decent AW, yet you consistently
>>>> fail to explain what's better about elimination instead. It's not my
>>>> fault.
>>>> It IS your fault.
>>>
>>>Why don't you just answer the question,
>>
>> I did.
>
>The question is right below, I did not see an answer.
>
>>>why should we get credit for
>>>providing what we owe, decent lives?
>>
>> I don't care if you give browny points for it or not. But! That doesn't
>> mean that people should be incapable of considering the animals as
>> you/"aras" so desperately want them to.
>
>So, since, as you say, some animals are provided with decent lives, what
>concrete action exactly are we supposed to do with that information? Do we
>abstain from using products from animals that *don't* have decent lives?
Some of we abstain from some of them. Why not?
>Apparently you don't advocate that,
How would you know? Oh that's right, you don't care about what I really
advocate and what I don't, you just care about what you/"aras" want people
to believe I advocate.
>so what's the point?
You will invent and promote whatever you want. It's what you do.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
