Meat eaters contribute to life and death

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.DeleteThis@whitemouse.not> wrote in message news:e2J7b.6518$Yt.4167@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Filth wrote:
>
> > "Dave" <weird_dave.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bjnfnn$gam$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >
> >>Dreck/Filth wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Dave" <weird_dave.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bjlog0$fjo$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >>>
> >>>>That was far too much to read,
> >>>
> >>>By who's standard?
> >>
> >>Mine
> >
> > Then I suggest you raise your standard instead
> > of trying to insist others should lower theirs to
> > suit you.
>
> Nope. He made a good point, Derek.

He has no attention span and failed to read the
article. Rather than get others to chop his food,
he should learn to do it himself, so his point was
absurd.

> Intelligent,
> educated people don't need to cut-and-paste a lot of
> material. They are able to digest it and re-express it
> in their own words, with maybe a couple of BRIEF direct
> quotes of the original material.
>
Much like I did when teaching you moral virtue.
It was so good you thought I swiped it from a
professional writer. You owe me an apology
for claiming I plagiarised my own work.

> Actually, Derek, I like that guy Salt's critique of
> Fuckwit's position.

So do I. So much so that I brought the whole lot
of it here so others could enjoy it as we do.

> It is exactly the same as my critique of Fuckwit's position.

No, it isn't. You've been trying, unsuccessfully, for
over three years to form a credible critique on
Harrison's position, but as always, you failed.

> In fact, it is exactly
> the same as the critique of Fuckwit's position by all
> the major opponents of "ar"

Hold it right there, liar. Even Salt, with whom you agree
so readily states, "The argument is frequently used by
sportsmen, on the grounds that the fox would long ago
have become extinct in this country had not they, his true
friends, *preserved* him for purposes of sport. Vivisectors,
who breed guinea-pigs for experimentation, also have used
it, and they have as much right to it as flesh-eaters; for how,
they may say, can a few hours of suffering be set in the
balance against the enormous benefit of life?"
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:53:40 GMT, fred.TakeThisOut@just.fred wrote:
>
>
>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:28:41 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message news:h57tlvcdcnvsrt9mbcghchrno8fc2mvfn9@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:30:30 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Unborn, impersonal,
>>>>>>can feel no dearth.We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day
>>>>>>was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, then why aren't more people suggesting the elimination
>>>>>of life on Earth, so that nothing must feel dearth?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you were to include the beginning of the sentence
>>>>instead of cutting it off in your reply, you might've
>>>>gleaned the answer to your question without having
>>>>to ask me.
>>>>
>>>>"What loss were ours, if we had known not birth?
>>>
>>>
>>> How does that part explain it?
>>
>>You're not very smart, are you?
>
>
> You can't explain it either.

Of course I can, dummy. You could, too, if you had
been paying attention for the last 4 years, but you
weren't.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:36:56 GMT, fred.TakeThisOut@just.fred wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:53:40 GMT, fred.TakeThisOut@just.fred wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:28:41 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message news:h57tlvcdcnvsrt9mbcghchrno8fc2mvfn9@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:30:30 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash.TakeThisOut@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unborn, impersonal,
>>>>>>>can feel no dearth.We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day
>>>>>>>was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, then why aren't more people suggesting the elimination
>>>>>>of life on Earth, so that nothing must feel dearth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you were to include the beginning of the sentence
>>>>>instead of cutting it off in your reply, you might've
>>>>>gleaned the answer to your question without having
>>>>>to ask me.
>>>>>
>>>>>"What loss were ours, if we had known not birth?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does that part explain it?
>>>
>>>You're not very smart, are you?
>>
>>
>> You can't explain it either.
>
>Of course I can,

Do it.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

> > According to your way of thinking, the moon must be ethically
> > superior to Earth because nothing gets killed there.
>
> Faulty logic. Actually, you exhibited no logic.

That's not the Earth's fault. The earth is just a rock, just like
the moon.

If you believe EVERYthing and EVERYbody is ethically equivalent,
then don't complain about prisoners or say that you are ethically
superior to prisoners.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:36:56 GMT, fred RemoveThis @just.fred wrote:
>
>
>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:53:40 GMT, fred RemoveThis @just.fred wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:28:41 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote in message news:h57tlvcdcnvsrt9mbcghchrno8fc2mvfn9@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:30:30 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Unborn, impersonal,
>>>>>>>>can feel no dearth.We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day
>>>>>>>>was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, then why aren't more people suggesting the elimination
>>>>>>>of life on Earth, so that nothing must feel dearth?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you were to include the beginning of the sentence
>>>>>>instead of cutting it off in your reply, you might've
>>>>>>gleaned the answer to your question without having
>>>>>>to ask me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"What loss were ours, if we had known not birth?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How does that part explain it?
>>>>
>>>>You're not very smart, are you?
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't explain it either.
>>
>>Of course I can, , dummy. You could, too,
>>if you had been paying attention for the
>>last 4 years, but you weren't.
>
>
> Do it.

I see no point in it. It has been done, thousands of
times, in replies to you. You weren't paying attention
then, and you're clearly not paying attention now. You
have a little game going, and you're too stupid to
realize you're playing by yourself.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:47:52 GMT, fred.DeleteThis@just.fried wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:36:56 GMT, fred.DeleteThis@just.fred wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:53:40 GMT, fred.DeleteThis@just.fred wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:28:41 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote in message news:h57tlvcdcnvsrt9mbcghchrno8fc2mvfn9@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:30:30 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash.DeleteThis@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Unborn, impersonal,
>>>>>>>>>can feel no dearth.We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day
>>>>>>>>>was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so, then why aren't more people suggesting the elimination
>>>>>>>>of life on Earth, so that nothing must feel dearth?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you were to include the beginning of the sentence
>>>>>>>instead of cutting it off in your reply, you might've
>>>>>>>gleaned the answer to your question without having
>>>>>>>to ask me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"What loss were ours, if we had known not birth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does that part explain it?
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not very smart, are you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't explain it either.
>>>
>>>Of course I can, , dummy. You could, too,
>>>if you had been paying attention for the
>>>last 4 years, but you weren't.
>>
>>
>> Do it.
>
>I see no point in it.

LOL!!!

>It has been done, thousands of
>times, in replies to you. You weren't paying attention
>then, and you're clearly not paying attention now. You
>have a little game going, and you're too stupid to
>realize you're playing by yourself.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:47:52 GMT, fred RemoveThis @just.fried wrote:
>
>
>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:36:56 GMT, fred RemoveThis @just.fred wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:53:40 GMT, fred RemoveThis @just.fred wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:28:41 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote in message news:h57tlvcdcnvsrt9mbcghchrno8fc2mvfn9@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:30:30 +0100, "Derek" <dereknash RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Unborn, impersonal,
>>>>>>>>>>can feel no dearth.We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day
>>>>>>>>>>was clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If so, then why aren't more people suggesting the elimination
>>>>>>>>>of life on Earth, so that nothing must feel dearth?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you were to include the beginning of the sentence
>>>>>>>>instead of cutting it off in your reply, you might've
>>>>>>>>gleaned the answer to your question without having
>>>>>>>>to ask me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"What loss were ours, if we had known not birth?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does that part explain it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're not very smart, are you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't explain it either.
>>>>
>>>>Of course I can, , dummy. You could, too,
>>>>if you had been paying attention for the
>>>>last 4 years, but you weren't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do it.
>>
>>I see no point in it. It has been done, thousands of
>>times, in replies to you. You weren't paying attention
>>then, and you're clearly not paying attention now. You
>>have a little game going, and you're too stupid to
>>realize you're playing by yourself.
>
> LOL!!!

You are cheaply amused, but that's not surprising.
Your little animal fable is cheap.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

exploratory wrote:
>>> According to your way of thinking, the moon must be ethically
>>>superior to Earth because nothing gets killed there.
>>
>>Faulty logic. Actually, you exhibited no logic.
>
>
> That's not the Earth's fault. The earth is just a rock, just like
> the moon.

Dope. I said Harrison exhibited no logic.

>
> If you believe EVERYthing and EVERYbody is ethically equivalent,
> then don't complain about prisoners or say that you are ethically
> superior to prisoners.

I never said that I believe everything [sic] and
everybody are ethically equivalent, nor did I write
anything to suggest I believe it. You need to learn to
read more attentively.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

> I never said that I believe everything [sic] and
> everybody are ethically equivalent, nor did I write
> anything to suggest I believe it. You need to learn to
> read more attentively.

Ok. Then what DID you say?

I can save you and me a few posts and counter-posts if you would
simply rid your vocabulary of the phrases "ethically superior/inferior"
-- and specifically of saying that anyone else believes they are
ethically superior/inferior --- unless, of course, someone else INITIATES
bringing up these stupid phrases.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

exploratory wrote:

>>I never said that I believe everything [sic] and
>>everybody are ethically equivalent, nor did I write
>>anything to suggest I believe it. You need to learn to
>>read more attentively.
>
>
> Ok. Then what DID you say?

Go back and read it again yourself, dummy. Read it,
then get back to us with the warped logic that led you
to believe I suggested everything [sic] and everybody
are ethically equivalent. This should be good for a laugh.

>
> I can save you and me a few posts and counter-posts if you would
> simply rid your vocabulary of the phrases "ethically superior/inferior"
> -- and specifically of saying that anyone else believes they are
> ethically superior/inferior --- unless, of course, someone else INITIATES
> bringing up these stupid phrases.

Tell it to the "vegans", pally. They DO believe that
abstaining from consuming animal parts makes them
ethically superior. The "vegans" started the stupid issue.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

<fred DeleteThis @just.fried> wrote in message
news:T2mbb.1104$vS.649@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> exploratory wrote:
>
> >>I never said that I believe everything [sic] and
> >>everybody are ethically equivalent, nor did I write
> >>anything to suggest I believe it. You need to learn to
> >>read more attentively.
> >
> >
> > Ok. Then what DID you say?
>
> Go back and read it again yourself, dummy. Read it,
> then get back to us with the warped logic that led you
> to believe I suggested everything [sic] and everybody
> are ethically equivalent. This should be good for a laugh.
>
> >
> > I can save you and me a few posts and counter-posts if you would
> > simply rid your vocabulary of the phrases "ethically superior/inferior"
> > -- and specifically of saying that anyone else believes they are
> > ethically superior/inferior --- unless, of course, someone else
INITIATES
> > bringing up these stupid phrases.
>
> Tell it to the "vegans", pally. They DO believe that
> abstaining from consuming animal parts makes them
> ethically superior. The "vegans" started the stupid issue.
>

I am vegan, and I do not consider myself morally different from the meat
eating public. In fact, I don't consider it wrong to eat meat or other
animal products, so long as they are ethically obtained.

The tragic fact is, in the US and many other industrial nations, most meat
and animal products are obtained through torturous factory farming. Animals
are painfully mutilated, left to sicken and die in their own waste because
it's cheaper than treating them, and kept in conditions that would make any
reasonable person physically ill to witness. When it comes to treatment
like this, the individuals and companies that create this environment are,
without doubt, morally inferior to the rest of us, vegan and meat-eater
alike.

Summary: I'm not vegan because eating animals is wrong. I'm vegan because
torturing animals (especially for a profit) is wrong. It's wrong when the
animals are intended to be pets, or circus acts, or food, no matter what.

Being vegan does not make one better or worse. Being a professional animal
torturer makes one despicable.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

"Vioxel" <sirkus.DeleteThis@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:thmbb.72974$jV1.50728@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> <fred.DeleteThis@just.fried> wrote in message
> news:T2mbb.1104$vS.649@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > exploratory wrote:
> >
> > >>I never said that I believe everything [sic] and
> > >>everybody are ethically equivalent, nor did I write
> > >>anything to suggest I believe it. You need to learn to
> > >>read more attentively.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok. Then what DID you say?
> >
> > Go back and read it again yourself, dummy. Read it,
> > then get back to us with the warped logic that led you
> > to believe I suggested everything [sic] and everybody
> > are ethically equivalent. This should be good for a laugh.
> >
> > >
> > > I can save you and me a few posts and counter-posts if you would
> > > simply rid your vocabulary of the phrases "ethically
superior/inferior"
> > > -- and specifically of saying that anyone else believes they are
> > > ethically superior/inferior --- unless, of course, someone else
> INITIATES
> > > bringing up these stupid phrases.
> >
> > Tell it to the "vegans", pally. They DO believe that
> > abstaining from consuming animal parts makes them
> > ethically superior. The "vegans" started the stupid issue.
> >
>
> I am vegan, and I do not consider myself morally different from the meat
> eating public. In fact, I don't consider it wrong to eat meat or other
> animal products, so long as they are ethically obtained.
=================
ergo, you then feel superior to most people, since you next say...


>
> The tragic fact is, in the US and many other industrial nations, most meat
> and animal products are obtained through torturous factory farming.
==================
Yes, millions and millions are killed to provide you with cheap, convenient
veggies.



Animals
> are painfully mutilated,
========================
Yes, they are shredded, sliced, diced, die-membered and left to suffer, die,
and rot in the fields of your veggies.


left to sicken and die in their own waste because
================
yes, millions and millions more are poisoned, leaving their guts to turn to
mush over a few days, just to keep your veggies clean, cheap, and
convenient.


> it's cheaper than treating them,
==================
Yep. it's cheaper just to ignore them and run them over, poison them, and
then starve them to death.


and kept in conditions that would make any
> reasonable person physically ill to witness. When it comes to treatment
> like this, the individuals and companies that create this environment are,
> without doubt, morally inferior to the rest of us, vegan and meat-eater
> alike.
====================
Ummm, I thoght you just said you don't feel superior....


>
> Summary: I'm not vegan because eating animals is wrong. I'm vegan
because
> torturing animals (especially for a profit) is wrong.
=====================
Like in providing you with cheap, convenient veggies...
or for providing you a forum to disply your intolerence and ignorance, since
millions and millions more die to provide you usenet access...


It's wrong when the
> animals are intended to be pets, or circus acts, or food, no matter what.
>
> Being vegan does not make one better or worse. Being a professional
animal
> torturer makes one despicable.
================
join the club of humans then, killer.\\


now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite.


>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

"Vioxel" <sirkus.RemoveThis@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message news:<thmbb.72974$jV1.50728@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> <fred.RemoveThis@just.fried> wrote in message
> news:T2mbb.1104$vS.649@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > exploratory wrote:
> >
> > >>I never said that I believe everything [sic] and
> > >>everybody are ethically equivalent, nor did I write
> > >>anything to suggest I believe it. You need to learn to
> > >>read more attentively.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok. Then what DID you say?
> >
> > Go back and read it again yourself, dummy. Read it,
> > then get back to us with the warped logic that led you
> > to believe I suggested everything [sic] and everybody
> > are ethically equivalent. This should be good for a laugh.
> >
> > >
> > > I can save you and me a few posts and counter-posts if you would
> > > simply rid your vocabulary of the phrases "ethically superior/inferior"
> > > -- and specifically of saying that anyone else believes they are
> > > ethically superior/inferior --- unless, of course, someone else
> INITIATES
> > > bringing up these stupid phrases.
> >
> > Tell it to the "vegans", pally. They DO believe that
> > abstaining from consuming animal parts makes them
> > ethically superior. The "vegans" started the stupid issue.
> >
>
> I am vegan, and I do not consider myself morally different from the meat
> eating public. In fact, I don't consider it wrong to eat meat or other
> animal products, so long as they are ethically obtained.
>
> The tragic fact is, in the US and many other industrial nations, most meat
> and animal products are obtained through torturous factory farming. Animals
> are painfully mutilated, left to sicken and die in their own waste because
> it's cheaper than treating them, and kept in conditions that would make any
> reasonable person physically ill to witness. When it comes to treatment
> like this, the individuals and companies that create this environment are,
> without doubt, morally inferior to the rest of us, vegan and meat-eater
> alike.
>
> Summary: I'm not vegan because eating animals is wrong. I'm vegan because
> torturing animals (especially for a profit) is wrong. It's wrong when the
> animals are intended to be pets, or circus acts, or food, no matter what.
>
> Being vegan does not make one better or worse. Being a professional animal
> torturer makes one despicable.

How do you define a factory farm?
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death