Welcome to PetForumz.com!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

Dalai Lama warns KFC

 
Goto page 1, 2
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights RSS
Related Topics:
Ecology Body Warns Of Dangers From Fish Farms - Ecology Body Warns Of Dangers From Fish Farms 8-13-3 GENEVA (Reuters) -- The explosion in fish farming in coastal waters around the world is a mounting danger to the and to the survival of wild species, the

The long-awaited Third Reading of the Government's Hunting.. - Dear The Third Reading of the Hunting Bill has been announced for 30th June. This is a critical vote for the future of hunting with dogs. The Hunting Bill, bans deer hunting, hare coursing and hare..

Virus Warning - I don't know why I bother, I suppose I'm just that kinda guy. There's a W32 Gibe.B@MM waiting for:- Rick Etter Dr. Doody I have receive a couple for the same source , never heard of the guy. It's the usual

"We Have Tried Nipping Her In The Ear Or Back Leg As Mom W.. - HOWEDY wrote in message > wrote: in message > > > (Not breeds, I don't..

Pushy Stinkers - N.I.L.I.F. - Re: Help with Cane Corso - HOWEDY leah, wrote in message > wrote: > >Being a trainer we are going to get bit. Only if you're a screw up, leah. > > That is a given, You..
Next:  Realizing The Solution is far beyond the powers o..  
Author Message
Ray

External


Since: May 18, 2004
Posts: 184



(Msg. 1) Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:31 pm
Post subject: Dalai Lama warns KFC
Archived from groups: alt>animals>ethics>vegetarian, others (more info?)

Dalai Lama Demands That KFC Stay out of Tibet
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso is the head of the Tibetan
government-in-exile and spiritual leader to the more than 350 million
Buddhists worldwide. The Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in
1989, has long been known to speak out on social justice issues ranging from
China's occupation of Tibet to the problems associated with globalisation.
Now, His Holiness has lent his voice to the 750 million chickens raised and
killed for KFC each year by writing a powerful letter to KFC, asking the
company to cancel its plans to expand its growing Chinese operation into his
homeland of Tibet.



His Holiness writes in his letter, 'I have been particularly concerned with
the sufferings of chickens for many years. It was the death of a chicken
that finally strengthened my resolve to become vegetarian. . These days,
when I see a row of plucked chickens hanging in a meat shop it hurts. I find
it unacceptable that violence is the basis of some of our food habits. . It
is therefore quite natural for me to support those who are currently
protesting against the introduction of industrial food practices into Tibet
that will perpetuate the suffering of huge numbers of chickens'.

The Dalai Lama wants KFC to stop slicing the beaks off baby birds without
pain relief, stop breeding and drugging birds to grow so obese that their
legs break and stop scalding millions of chickens to death in
slaughterhouses every year.

Pity he can't kick the chinks out as well!

More related news from PeTA


Chickens are probably the most abused animals on the face of the planet.
They suffer any number of cruelties, including being left by the hundreds of
thousands to starve to death, having their sensitive beaks seared off with
hot blades, being crammed 11 birds to a tiny cage along with the decomposing
corpses of other chickens, and dying in huge numbers from long journeys in
extreme weather conditions. Basically, any and all abuse is allowable when
it comes to chickens, who are, in fact, remarkable animals with distinct
personalities and intelligence that, if allowed to develop, is as advanced
as that of cats and dogs. Most importantly, they feel pain, just as we do.

The following is a basic outline of PETA's recommended animal-welfare
program, followed by a review of the most egregious abuses inflicted on
chickens who are raised for food.

.. Replace electrical stunning and throat slicing with contained-atmosphere
stunning-to-kill. Experts agree that contained-atmosphere stunning-to-kill
causes less suffering for birds than KFC's present method of snapping
chickens' legs into metal shackles and slicing their throats open, often
while they are still conscious.

.. Install cameras in slaughterhouses to enforce humane standards. Cameras
should be installed at key points for animal handling, including unloading
areas, the point of entry into the "stun" bath, the point of entry into the
scalding tank, and places where chickens have their throats slit.

.. Switch to humane mechanized chicken gathering. Studies have shown that
when using manual methods, there are four times as many broken legs, more
than eight times as much bruising, and increased stress.

.. Stop forcing rapid growth and feeding chickens drugs, and breed for
health. Breed leaner, healthier, less aggressive birds instead of breeding
the biggest, fattest birds possible, and stop feeding chickens antibiotics
and other drugs for nontherapeutic purposes.

.. Give chickens more living space. Currently, bird fatality and injury rates
are extremely high, based in part on the fact that the birds simply do not
have enough space to survive. Experts agree that increased living space
would decrease these problems.

.. Allow birds the opportunity to fulfill their natural desire for activity.
For example, provide the birds with whole green cabbages suspended in the
air to peck at and eat. The cabbages stimulate healthy activity, dispel
boredom, strengthen leg muscles, and provide nutrients without adding to the
weight problems of these birds. Or include sheltered areas and perches in
chicken houses, which would enhance the birds' living space, reducing their
stress and aggression, and allow them to engage in some of their natural
behaviors.

Plenty more Home Truths at www.peta.org

 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
dh_ld

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 586



(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 6:30 am
Post subject: Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:31:17 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray.DeleteThis@syntex.com> wrote:

>
>
>Dalai Lama Demands That KFC Stay out of Tibet
>His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso is the head of the Tibetan
>government-in-exile and spiritual leader to the more than 350 million
>Buddhists worldwide. The Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in
>1989, has long been known to speak out on social justice issues ranging from
>China's occupation of Tibet to the problems associated with globalisation.
>Now, His Holiness has lent his voice to the 750 million chickens raised and
>killed for KFC each year by writing a powerful letter to KFC, asking the
>company to cancel its plans to expand its growing Chinese operation into his
>homeland of Tibet.
>
>
>
>His Holiness writes in his letter, 'I have been particularly concerned with
>the sufferings of chickens for many years. It was the death of a chicken
>that finally strengthened my resolve to become vegetarian. . These days,
>when I see a row of plucked chickens hanging in a meat shop it hurts. I find
>it unacceptable that violence is the basis of some of our food habits. . It
>is therefore quite natural for me to support those who are currently
>protesting against the introduction of industrial food practices into Tibet
>that will perpetuate the suffering of huge numbers of chickens'.
>
>The Dalai Lama wants KFC to stop slicing the beaks off baby birds without
>pain relief, stop breeding and drugging birds to grow so obese that their
>legs break and stop scalding millions of chickens to death in
>slaughterhouses every year.

There is no excuse for scalding animals to death....except maybe
shellfish, and I believe there must be some decent way to kill them
first.

>Pity he can't kick the chinks out as well!
>
>More related news from PeTA
>
>
>Chickens are probably the most abused animals on the face of the planet.
>They suffer any number of cruelties, including being left by the hundreds of
>thousands to starve to death, having their sensitive beaks seared off with
>hot blades, being crammed 11 birds to a tiny cage along with the decomposing
>corpses of other chickens, and dying in huge numbers from long journeys in
>extreme weather conditions. Basically, any and all abuse is allowable when
>it comes to chickens, who are, in fact, remarkable animals with distinct
>personalities and intelligence that, if allowed to develop, is as advanced
>as that of cats and dogs.

That is utter bullshit.

>Most importantly, they feel pain, just as we do.

They feel pain. We have no way of knowing if it's "just as we do"
or not. I don't believe that it is, but they do feel pain without doubt.

>The following is a basic outline of PETA's recommended animal-welfare
>program, followed by a review of the most egregious abuses inflicted on
>chickens who are raised for food.
>
>. Replace electrical stunning and throat slicing with contained-atmosphere
>stunning-to-kill. Experts agree that contained-atmosphere stunning-to-kill
>causes less suffering for birds than KFC's present method of snapping
>chickens' legs into metal shackles and slicing their throats open, often
>while they are still conscious.
>
>. Install cameras in slaughterhouses to enforce humane standards. Cameras
>should be installed at key points for animal handling, including unloading
>areas, the point of entry into the "stun" bath, the point of entry into the
>scalding tank, and places where chickens have their throats slit.
>
>. Switch to humane mechanized chicken gathering. Studies have shown that
>when using manual methods, there are four times as many broken legs, more
>than eight times as much bruising, and increased stress.
>
>. Stop forcing rapid growth and feeding chickens drugs, and breed for
>health. Breed leaner, healthier, less aggressive birds instead of breeding
>the biggest, fattest birds possible, and stop feeding chickens antibiotics
>and other drugs for nontherapeutic purposes.
>
>. Give chickens more living space. Currently, bird fatality and injury rates
>are extremely high, based in part on the fact that the birds simply do not
>have enough space to survive. Experts agree that increased living space
>would decrease these problems.
>
>. Allow birds the opportunity to fulfill their natural desire for activity.
>For example, provide the birds with whole green cabbages suspended in the
>air to peck at and eat. The cabbages stimulate healthy activity, dispel
>boredom, strengthen leg muscles, and provide nutrients without adding to the
>weight problems of these birds. Or include sheltered areas and perches in
>chicken houses, which would enhance the birds' living space, reducing their
>stress and aggression, and allow them to engage in some of their natural
>behaviors.

That's a very good idea. If they have perches, they can get away from
aggressors.

>Plenty more Home Truths at www.peta.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Ray

External


Since: May 18, 2004
Posts: 184



(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
news:jckce09glcgg5t6t7ab98ulgnoq3ta9pr7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:31:17 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" <ray DeleteThis @syntex.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dalai Lama Demands That KFC Stay out of Tibet
> >His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso is the head of the Tibetan
> >government-in-exile and spiritual leader to the more than 350 million
> >Buddhists worldwide. The Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in
> >1989, has long been known to speak out on social justice issues ranging
from
> >China's occupation of Tibet to the problems associated with
globalisation.
> >Now, His Holiness has lent his voice to the 750 million chickens raised
and
> >killed for KFC each year by writing a powerful letter to KFC, asking the
> >company to cancel its plans to expand its growing Chinese operation into
his
> >homeland of Tibet.
> >
> >
> >
> >His Holiness writes in his letter, 'I have been particularly concerned
with
> >the sufferings of chickens for many years. It was the death of a chicken
> >that finally strengthened my resolve to become vegetarian. . These days,
> >when I see a row of plucked chickens hanging in a meat shop it hurts. I
find
> >it unacceptable that violence is the basis of some of our food habits. .
It
> >is therefore quite natural for me to support those who are currently
> >protesting against the introduction of industrial food practices into
Tibet
> >that will perpetuate the suffering of huge numbers of chickens'.
> >
> >The Dalai Lama wants KFC to stop slicing the beaks off baby birds without
> >pain relief, stop breeding and drugging birds to grow so obese that their
> >legs break and stop scalding millions of chickens to death in
> >slaughterhouses every year.
>
> There is no excuse for scalding animals to death....except maybe
> shellfish, and I believe there must be some decent way to kill them
> first.

You think shellfish are incapable of feeling pain?
You don't have to kill them at all. Vegans and vegetarians manage well
without killing anything. No I have not forgotten CDs.
>
> >Pity he can't kick the chinks out as well!
> >
> >More related news from PeTA
> >
> >
> >Chickens are probably the most abused animals on the face of the planet.
> >They suffer any number of cruelties, including being left by the hundreds
of
> >thousands to starve to death, having their sensitive beaks seared off
with
> >hot blades, being crammed 11 birds to a tiny cage along with the
decomposing
> >corpses of other chickens, and dying in huge numbers from long journeys
in
> >extreme weather conditions. Basically, any and all abuse is allowable
when
> >it comes to chickens, who are, in fact, remarkable animals with distinct
> >personalities and intelligence that, if allowed to develop, is as
advanced
> >as that of cats and dogs.
>
> That is utter bullshit.

Which part David, the abuse or the statement that they are as advanced as
cats or dogs?
Personally, I doubt the latter statement, but when I cut and paste, I post
the entire article and not just the bits that fall in line with my own
feelings.
>
> >Most importantly, they feel pain, just as we do.
>
> They feel pain. We have no way of knowing if it's "just as we do"
> or not. I don't believe that it is, but they do feel pain without doubt.

<snip>
>
>
> >Plenty more Home Truths at www.peta.org
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:24 am
Post subject: Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote

> They may have done some things that helped animals in some ways,
> but I would rather see people want farm animals to have decent lives
> than want to see them eliminated.

Apart from wanting animal products, why should anyone care if livestock are
eliminated?
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
dh_ld

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 586



(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 01:24:35 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:

><dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote
>
>> They may have done some things that helped animals in some ways,
>> but I would rather see people want farm animals to have decent lives
>> than want to see them eliminated.
>
>Apart from wanting animal products, why should anyone care if livestock are
>eliminated?

Obviously some people care because they don't want them to live. Those
people don't want them to live because they will be killed.

Apart from how humans benefit from their existence, why should anyone
care if wildlife are eliminated?
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:25 pm
Post subject: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 01:24:35 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote
> >
> >> They may have done some things that helped animals in some ways,
> >> but I would rather see people want farm animals to have decent lives
> >> than want to see them eliminated.
> >
> >Apart from wanting animal products, why should anyone care if livestock
are
> >eliminated?
>
> Obviously some people care because they don't want them to live.

You evaded my question. I was referring to people who consume and want meat
and other animal products. Why should meat consumers care if livestock
species are eliminated, apart from their desire for the products those
animals provide?

You think they should take some satisfaction or pride in the fact that those
animals "get to experience life", a completely absurd and corrupt notion.

> Those
> people don't want them to live because they will be killed.

Right, and because in their view people should not be exploiting animals in
that way. It's not a view I share, but when you say ARAs "they want to see
them eliminated" you are saying nothing of any value. Of course they want to
see them eliminated, nobody sees that as a *wrong* against animals.

> Apart from how humans benefit from their existence, why should anyone
> care if wildlife are eliminated?

You cannot place livestock and wildlife in the same category. Wildlife have
intrinsic value as part of the ecosystem that supports all life on earth,
livestock are artificial species with no intrinsic value beyond their
utility to humans. There is no reason beyond utilitarian ones to want them
to exist.

You will always fail miserably when trying to promote The Logic of the
Larder, it has no positive value as an argument.
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Jonathan Ball

External


Since: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 869



(Msg. 7) Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Dutch wrote:

> <dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote
>
>>On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 01:24:35 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:

>>Those people don't want them to live because they will be killed.
>
>
> Right, and because in their view people should not be exploiting animals in
> that way. It's not a view I share, but when you say ARAs "they want to see
> them eliminated" you are saying nothing of any value. Of course they want to
> see them eliminated, nobody sees that as a *wrong* against animals.

This is the essential thing in why Fuckwit has failed.
His view is that it IS a wrong against animals, and
he wants to persuade "aras" that it is, and that they
are evil for wanting to inflict the wrong.

Fuckwit is a chronic liar, of course, and claims he
doesn't view it as an evil. The voluminous evidence
that he does is laid out in the FAQ.

Fuckwit doesn't care at all about "decent lives" for
farm animals; Fuckwit ONLY cares about promoting
existence per se for farm animals.

>
>
>> Apart from how humans benefit from their existence, why should anyone
>>care if wildlife are eliminated?
>
>
> You cannot place livestock and wildlife in the same category. Wildlife have
> intrinsic value as part of the ecosystem that supports all life on earth,
> livestock are artificial species with no intrinsic value beyond their
> utility to humans. There is no reason beyond utilitarian ones to want them
> to exist.
>
> You will always fail miserably when trying to promote The Logic of the
> Larder, it has no positive value as an argument.

Oh, it has a little utility for dummies and fakes like
Fuckwit and JethroFW, but it doesn't withstand any real
scrutiny.
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
dh_ld

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 586



(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:24:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 01:24:35 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> They may have done some things that helped animals in some ways,
>> >> but I would rather see people want farm animals to have decent lives
>> >> than want to see them eliminated.
>> >
>> >Apart from wanting animal products, why should anyone care if livestock
>are
>> >eliminated?
>>
>> Obviously some people care because they don't want them to live.
>
>You evaded my question. I was referring to people who consume and want meat
>and other animal products. Why should meat consumers care if livestock
>species are eliminated, apart from their desire for the products those
>animals provide?
>
>You think they should take some satisfaction or pride in the fact that those
>animals "get to experience life", a completely absurd and corrupt notion.

Why? There is absolutely no doubt that you are unable to provide a good
reason why.

>> Those
>> people don't want them to live because they will be killed.
>
>Right, and because in their view people should not be exploiting animals in
>that way. It's not a view I share, but when you say ARAs "they want to see
>them eliminated" you are saying nothing of any value. Of course they want to
>see them eliminated, nobody sees that as a *wrong* against animals.
>
>> Apart from how humans benefit from their existence, why should anyone
>> care if wildlife are eliminated?
>
>You cannot place livestock and wildlife in the same category. Wildlife have
>intrinsic value as part of the ecosystem that supports all life on earth,
>livestock are artificial species with no intrinsic value beyond their
>utility to humans. There is no reason beyond utilitarian ones to want them
>to exist.

Apart from how humans benefit from their existence, why should anyone
care if wildlife are eliminated?

>You will always fail miserably when trying to promote The Logic of the
>Larder, it has no positive value as an argument.

That coming from a person who thinks a fantasy about a talking pig,
who knows he is pork, and will be killed, and made into ham and
sausage, which was written by a founder of the "AR" concept, is
the best "refutation" to the fact that some animals benefit from farming.
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:24:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:

[..]
> >You think they should take some satisfaction or pride in the fact that
those
> >animals "get to experience life", a completely absurd and corrupt notion.
>
> Why?

Because they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*. That
fact defines the moral relationship between us and them, excluding any
possibility of claiming moral credit for the fact they happen to live in the
process. I can't put it any more simply.
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dieter

External


Since: May 31, 2004
Posts: 55



(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 12:33 am
Post subject: Re: Dalai Lama warns Fuckwit David Harrison to STOP LYING [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

No lying, Fuckwit. It's ALL true, and everyone can see it.

Fuckwit, who sometimes uses the alias "David Harrison",
has long insisted that I have "lied" about his beliefs.
I have never lied about his beliefs. He has written
thousands of usenet posts based on his beliefs, and I
have correctly interpreted his writing. His belief
about animals, specifically his belief that animals
"getting to experience life" is a morally good thing
in and of itself, is something that appears frequently
and with (believe it or not) a peculiar kind of clarity.

Read these quotes that I have culled from Fuckwit's
usenet rantings over a four and a half year period,
and judge for yourselves.

All emphasis in the quotes, by use of asterisks, is
Fuckwit's own.



Fuckwit believes that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999


He believes they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999


He believes that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
Fuckwit - 09/04/1999

All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
Fuckwit - 12/11/1999

Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002

But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
Fuckwit - 04/20/2002

Life is the benefit that makes all others possible.
Fuckwit - 06/25/2003 (and numerous other posts)


Fuckwit tries to deny that he attaches any importance
to the mere fact of "getting to experience life" per
se, but as usual, his words betray him. Here, we see
that Fuckwit believes that "providing them with life"
earns humans some kind of moral bonus points:

As for whether or not providing them with life
is an acceptable trade off for taking it later,
no one has ever had a problem with it.
Fuckwit - 10/12/2003


He believes that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
Fuckwit - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
Fuckwit - 01/08/2002

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
Fuckwit - 07/30/1999

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
[like Humpty Dumpty, I pay this quote extra!]


Fuckwit *claims*, falsely, that what the animals feel
about their lives is what matters:

But!! Since *we* are not the ones that we are
discussing, what *we* know has nothing to do
with it. Instead, the way the animals feel
about their lives is what matters, and in order
to get some idea of what that is, we have to
ignore the things that we know, and that they
do not (like the fact that they will be
killed). If a person is not willing to try to
do that, then they really don't care about the
animals, but are worried more about their self.
Fuckwit - 08/20/1999


But of course, he's lying. It's what *Fuckwit* feels
about them, about his connection to them, about his
ability to "appreciate" them for a while, that matters
to him:

Over in cat ng world I've been flamed pretty
well for letting [Fuckwit's cat] have any
[kittens]. At least one of them feels that for
every kitten I let a person have from "my" cat,
a kitten in a shelter will die. Of course the
ratio is not likely to be anywhere near one to
one, but some folks tend to be a bit fanatical
about things. Even if it were that way, there
is really no reason for me to encourage life
for some kittens in a shelter, at the expense
of kittens that could get to experience life
from a cat that I actually care about, and
kittens that I get to appreciate and like at
least for a little while.
Fuckwit - 09/23/1999


Fuckwit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
them. But as we see, Fuckwit isn't at all concerned
with providing "decent lives" for them. He's
interested in seeing them "get to experience life",
period, irrespective of the quality of that life. And
he feels anyone who wants to try to stop that is evil.

No one needs to show any ethical superiority of one
"proposal" over another, at all, as long as Fuckwit is
lying about *his* proposal - he is lying about it - and
as long as he continues to insist on presenting the
bogus, logically invalid choice that he does.

The record, in Fuckwit's own words, speaks for itself.
No one has "lied" about Fuckwit's beliefs. Fuckwit
believes everything I have said he believes, as
supported by Fuckwit's own ranting.
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michael Saunby

External


Since: Jun 27, 2003
Posts: 79



(Msg. 11) Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:10eh8oh5mdila92@news.supernews.com...
> <dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote
> > On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:24:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
> > >You think they should take some satisfaction or pride in the fact that
> those
> > >animals "get to experience life", a completely absurd and corrupt
notion.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*. That
> fact defines the moral relationship between us and them, excluding any
> possibility of claiming moral credit for the fact they happen to live in
the
> process. I can't put it any more simply.
>

Fair point. Though if you expect a rigorous examination of this matter you
might need to consider whether "take some satisfaction or pride..." means
"claiming moral credit". To me the notion of claiming moral credit sounds
rather like expecting some reward (the credit bit). Quite how a person
might expect to get credit for taking satisfaction I can't imagine. For a
Christian any moral credit would surely need to come from an unselfish act,
quite likely some form of sacrifice. Donating a kidney so your pet dog
might live a longer life might gain some moral credit for a suitable
authority, but they joy of seeing your pet dog give birth to a healthy
litter, or similar isn't quite the same. Then again most religions do seem
to celebrate new life, so maybe it's a religious thing - hard for me to
grasp, but I've met religious types and what they believe seems almost as
irrational as what ARAs believe.

Michael Saunby
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
dh_ld

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 586



(Msg. 12) Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 17:38:31 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:

><dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:24:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>[..]
>> >You think they should take some satisfaction or pride in the fact that
>those
>> >animals "get to experience life", a completely absurd and corrupt notion.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*.

Which means they get life that they wouldn't otherwise have. So far
you haven't pointed out any reason to believe taking the fact into
consideration is absurd or corrupt.

>That
>fact defines the moral relationship between us and them,

True.

>excluding any
>possibility of claiming moral credit for the fact they happen to live in the
>process.

It doesn't exclude it. It proves without question that they get life they
would not otherwise have had.

>I can't put it any more simply.

What you have said so far simply supports the fact that they only
experience life because we raise them for food. You keep trying to
make that appear a bad thing, but you just can't do it.
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 13) Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 17:38:31 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote
> >> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:24:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >> >You think they should take some satisfaction or pride in the fact that
> >those
> >> >animals "get to experience life", a completely absurd and corrupt
notion.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> >Because they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*.
>
> Which means they get life that they wouldn't otherwise have.

It means much more than that.

So far
> you haven't pointed out any reason to believe taking the fact into
> consideration is absurd or corrupt.

Because they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*. Imagine
if I were talking about children there, and you can see that the fact that
"they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*" completely
defines the morality of creating them, the fact that those children
"experience some life" has NO weight in the equation. Although the inherent
morality of each of these acts is completely different (unless you happen to
be an ARA), what is common between them is that at no time does "getting to
experience life" come into play when placing a moral value on them.

> >That
> >fact defines the moral relationship between us and them,
>
> True.

Then why do you believe that you can introduce the fact that they experience
life as a moral factor?

> >excluding any
> >possibility of claiming moral credit for the fact they happen to live in
the
> >process.
>
> It doesn't exclude it.

It absolutely rules it out.

> It proves without question that they get life they
> would not otherwise have had.

That "factlette" never needed any proof, it's self-evident. That doesn't
give it moral weight.

> >I can't put it any more simply.
>
> What you have said so far simply supports the fact that they only
> experience life because we raise them for food. You keep trying to
> make that appear a bad thing, but you just can't do it.

It's not a bad thing, it just does not contribute to the moral equation.
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
dh_ld

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 586



(Msg. 14) Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:36:55 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:

><dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 17:38:31 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote
>> >> On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 11:24:43 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >> >You think they should take some satisfaction or pride in the fact that
>> >those
>> >> >animals "get to experience life", a completely absurd and corrupt
>notion.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> >Because they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*.
>>
>> Which means they get life that they wouldn't otherwise have.
>
>It means much more than that.
>
> So far
>> you haven't pointed out any reason to believe taking the fact into
>> consideration is absurd or corrupt.
>
>Because they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*. Imagine
>if I were talking about children there, and you can see that the fact that
>"they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*" completely
>defines the morality of creating them, the fact that those children
>"experience some life" has NO weight in the equation.

You insist it would be okay to raise them for food as long as we didn't
try to justify it, or consider what they gain from doing so.

>Although the inherent
>morality of each of these acts is completely different (unless you happen to
>be an ARA), what is common between them is that at no time does "getting to
>experience life" come into play when placing a moral value on them.
>
>> >That
>> >fact defines the moral relationship between us and them,
>>
>> True.
>
>Then why do you believe that you can introduce the fact that they experience
>life as a moral factor?
>
>> >excluding any
>> >possibility of claiming moral credit for the fact they happen to live in
>the
>> >process.
>>
>> It doesn't exclude it.
>
>It absolutely rules it out.
>
>> It proves without question that they get life they
>> would not otherwise have had.
>
>That "factlette" never needed any proof, it's self-evident. That doesn't
>give it moral weight.
>
>> >I can't put it any more simply.
>>
>> What you have said so far simply supports the fact that they only
>> experience life because we raise them for food. You keep trying to
>> make that appear a bad thing, but you just can't do it.
>
>It's not a bad thing, it just does not contribute to the moral equation.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 15) Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Harrison can't stop promoting The Logic of the Larder was Re: Dalai Lama warns KFC [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:36:55 -0700, "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote:
>

> >Because they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*.
Imagine
> >if I were talking about children there, and you can see that the fact
that
> >"they exist soley to die *at our whim* to serve *our needs*" completely
> >defines the morality of creating them, the fact that those children
> >"experience some life" has NO weight in the equation.
>
> You insist it would be okay to raise them for food as long as we
didn't
> try to justify it, or consider what they gain from doing so.

The justification is simply that when hungry, animals eat other animals. The
AR game is to convince you that there a great moral drama, don't get caught
up in it.

[..]
 >> Stay informed about: Dalai Lama warns KFC 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page 1, 2
Page 1 of 2

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]