"vegan" = NOT better

dh@. wrote:

.....
> What you want would prevent livestock from existing at all,

Well, yes -- but it would not prevent the *animals* from existing
(in reasonable numbers).

> and
> you are VERY! obviously ashamed to admit it.

I can't see why anyone should be ashamed to admit it if he
did want domestic species to go extinct, although this is
not what Rupert is suggesting. What particular value is there
in keeping domestic species in existence, _per se_? They
are artificially created mutations from the original wild
stock, which did have a genuine ecological niche and a
valuable place in the ecosystem. Some wild remnants, such as
wild turkeys, still do, and should be preserved. But the world
would not suffer if the domestic turkey went extinct, or the
domestic cow, or pig, or chicken, or goat, or sheep. They
have no value to the ecosystem, and existing wild species
fill whatever ecological niche still remains for those species.

As long as the individual live animals are treated well, there is
no particular reason to breed more of the domestic animals.

....
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Fri, 19 May 2006 13:07:20 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven DeleteThis @all.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>....
>> What you want would prevent livestock from existing at all,
>
>Well, yes -- but it would not prevent the *animals* from existing
>(in reasonable numbers).
>
>> and
>> you are VERY! obviously ashamed to admit it.
>
>I can't see why anyone should be ashamed to admit it if he
>did want domestic species to go extinct, although this is
>not what Rupert is suggesting.

Why are you all ashamed of it? And since you so obviously
ARE ashamed of it, why in the hell do you promote it anyway?

>What particular value is there
>in keeping domestic species in existence, _per se_? They
>are artificially created mutations from the original wild
>stock, which did have a genuine ecological niche and a
>valuable place in the ecosystem. Some wild remnants, such as
>wild turkeys, still do, and should be preserved. But the world
>would not suffer if the domestic turkey went extinct, or the
>domestic cow, or pig, or chicken, or goat, or sheep. They
>have no value to the ecosystem, and existing wild species
>fill whatever ecological niche still remains for those species.
>
>As long as the individual live animals are treated well, there is
>no particular reason to breed more of the domestic animals.

Bullshit. One reason to raise them is to eat them.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

dh@. wrote:

.....

Glorfindel wrote:

>>As long as the individual live animals are treated well, there is
>>no particular reason to breed more of the domestic animals.

> Bullshit. One reason to raise them is to eat them.


That may be the first honest thing you have written in a very long time.

Yes, the one and *only* reason to raise domestic livestock is for
humans to eat them. Raising them, breeding them, has *NO* value
to the animals themselves at all.

Why are you ashamed to admit that?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing
cracker, blabbered:

> On Fri, 19 May 2006 13:07:20 -0600, Karen Winter blabbered:
>
>>What particular value is there
>>in keeping domestic species in existence, _per se_? They
>>are artificially created mutations from the original wild
>>stock, which did have a genuine ecological niche and a
>>valuable place in the ecosystem. Some wild remnants, such as
>>wild turkeys, still do, and should be preserved. But the world
>>would not suffer if the domestic turkey went extinct, or the
>>domestic cow, or pig, or chicken, or goat, or sheep. They
>>have no value to the ecosystem, and existing wild species
>>fill whatever ecological niche still remains for those species.
>>
>>As long as the individual live animals are treated well, there is
>>no particular reason to breed more of the domestic animals.
>
>
> Bullshit. One reason to raise them is to eat them.

That is the ONLY reason to raise them, Fuckwit. NO ONE
raises them in order to let them "get to experience
life". Our use of them is the ONLY valid reason for
breeding them into existence.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 13:07:20 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven.TakeThisOut@all.com> wrote:

>>I can't see why anyone should be ashamed to admit it if he
>>did want domestic species to go extinct, although this is
>>not what Rupert is suggesting.
>
> Why are you all ashamed of it? And since you so obviously
> ARE ashamed of it, why in the hell do you promote it anyway?

Explain what is wrong with domestic animal breeds going extinct. A short,
direct answer will suffice.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

> dh@. wrote:

>>What you encourage would prevent any sort of life for
>> those same potential animals, and you as yet have been ashamed
>> to admit it. And you most likely will disgustingly and pathetically
>> continue being ashamed to admit it, to the point that you border
>> on denying it. But you should either be proud of it, or change you
>> pov somehow. Don't encourage something and then deny it unless
>> you want to be like Goo. It's one of the bigger reasons for people to
>> think badly about "aras".

It's not a reason AT ALL. Nobody outside a couple of nitwits like you thinks
badly of ARAs for that reason. "Denying life for potential animals" is a
completely bogus and meaningless premiss for an argument. We may just as
well argue that we're denying life to the mythical porcupines. Reasons to
think badly about ARAs are things like their self-righteousness, and their
sometimes negative impact on legitimate activities.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 09:44:12 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >....
> >
> >Glorfindel wrote:
> >
> >>>As long as the individual live animals are treated well, there is
> >>>no particular reason to breed more of the domestic animals.
> >
> >> Bullshit. One reason to raise them is to eat them.
> >
> >
> >That may be the first honest thing you have written in a very long time.
> >
> >Yes, the one and *only* reason to raise domestic livestock is for
> >humans to eat them. Raising them, breeding them, has *NO* value
> >to the animals themselves at all.
> >
> >Why are you ashamed to admit that?
>
> I don't believe it. I can't "admit" something I don't believe.

It doesn't matter if you admit it or not, Fuckwit. It is so. Coming
into existence has NO value to the animals; if "they" never exist,
"they" don't miss anything.


> I believe their lives do have value to them

Their *lives* do not have value to them, Fuckwit. The *things* in
their life do, but ONLY if they exist in the first place, Fuckwit.
Coming *into* existence is not a "benefit" for them, Fuckwit.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Sun, 21 May 2006 09:44:12 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven RemoveThis @all.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>....
>
>Glorfindel wrote:
>
>>>As long as the individual live animals are treated well, there is
>>>no particular reason to breed more of the domestic animals.
>
>> Bullshit. One reason to raise them is to eat them.
>
>
>That may be the first honest thing you have written in a very long time.
>
>Yes, the one and *only* reason to raise domestic livestock is for
>humans to eat them. Raising them, breeding them, has *NO* value
>to the animals themselves at all.
>
>Why are you ashamed to admit that?

I don't believe it. I can't "admit" something I don't believe. I believe
their lives do have value to them...sometimes positive...sometimes
negative. There's no other way that I *could* feel about it afaik, unlike
yourself who can't feel that way at all. Weird huh?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

dh@. wrote:

.....

>>Glorfindel wrote:
....
>>Yes, the one and *only* reason to raise domestic livestock is for
>>humans to eat them. Raising them, breeding them, has *NO* value
>>to the animals themselves at all.

>>Why are you ashamed to admit that?

> I don't believe it. I can't "admit" something I don't believe. I believe
> their lives do have value to them

....

Of course they do, once the animals exist. No one disputes this.

However, before an animal, or a human, is born, he has no life,
and so his life *cannot* have any value to him. Yours didn't
either, nor did mine.

Everyone else in the world understands this except you, on both
sides of the AR debate. It has nothing to do with AR; only with
elementary logic.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

dh@. wrote:

.....

>>Glorfindel wrote:
....
>>Yes, the one and *only* reason to raise domestic livestock is for
>>humans to eat them. Raising them, breeding them, has *NO* value
>>to the animals themselves at all.

>>Why are you ashamed to admit that?

> I don't believe it. I can't "admit" something I don't believe. I believe
> their lives do have value to them

....

Of course they do, once the animals exist. No one disputes this.

However, before an animal, or a human, is born, he has no life,
and so his life *cannot* have any value to him. Yours didn't
either, nor did mine.

Everyone else in the world understands this except you, on both
sides of the AR debate. It has nothing to do with AR; only with
elementary logic.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On 21 May 2006 16:49:38 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 15 May 2006 16:45:56 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 7 May 2006 16:52:01 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 5 May 2006 17:33:24 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I apologize if there has been a misunderstanding, but I think
>> >> >> >> > you're
>> >> >> >> > not being very forthcoming about what you actually do believe.
>> >> >> >> ================================
>> >> >> >> As far as this NG goes, I have. Animals do not have rights.
>> >> >> >> Never will. And, you continue to prove that point for me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Delusion. If you want to prove that point, you'll have to come up with
>> >> >> >an argument on the subject.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They don't have rights now, that's apparent. If there "is" any
>> >> >> right to life, we have already discussed the fact that you DO
>> >> >> violate it in regards to wildlife just as everyone else does, but
>> >> >> you do NOT promote it for livestock. So. Now we're trying to
>> >> >> find the supposed ethical superiority of your livestock elimination
>> >> >> objective.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, I do financially support violations of the rights of wildlife. I
>> >> >do promote rights for livestock. I do not want to eliminate livestock,
>> >> >I just want their rights to be respected. If, as a result of that, no
>> >> >more livestock are brought into existence, I don't see a problem with
>> >> >that.
>> >>
>> >> Why are you afraid to admit that you want to see no more livestock?
>> >> If that's what you're in favor of--and it clearly is--what makes you
>> >> ashamed to just say so?
>> >
>> >As I've explained patiently a number of times, what I want is for us to
>> >stop violating the rights of livestock. I'm not in any way ashamed of
>> >my position, I'm being completely upfront about it.
>>
>> What you want would prevent livestock from existing at all, and
>> you are VERY! obviously ashamed to admit it.
>
>It would remove the main motivation that humans have for bringing
>livestock into existence. So it might mean that we don't bring any more
>of them into existence. I am not in the least ashamed to admit this.

So far you still are, but maybe you'll get over it. You should, that's for
sure!

>I don't see a problem with it.

You need to just say that you don't want livestock to live at all, regardless
of how good their lives could be, and regardless of whether or not it would
be better for the environment than crop production. THAT is what you
promote, and you need to be proud of it!!! Instead you won't even admit
it, much less act proud. You act more ashamed than proud of the very
thing you claim to be encouraging! We keep seeing more and more how
pathetic this whole thing is.
....
>> you should either be proud of it, or change you
>> pov somehow. Don't encourage something and then deny it unless
>> you want to be like Goo. It's one of the bigger reasons for people to
>> think badly about "aras".
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

dh@. wrote:
> On 21 May 2006 16:49:38 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 15 May 2006 16:45:56 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 7 May 2006 16:52:01 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 5 May 2006 17:33:24 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >rick wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I apologize if there has been a misunderstanding, but I think
> >> >> >> >> > you're
> >> >> >> >> > not being very forthcoming about what you actually do believe.
> >> >> >> >> ================================
> >> >> >> >> As far as this NG goes, I have. Animals do not have rights.
> >> >> >> >> Never will. And, you continue to prove that point for me.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Delusion. If you want to prove that point, you'll have to come up with
> >> >> >> >an argument on the subject.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> They don't have rights now, that's apparent. If there "is" any
> >> >> >> right to life, we have already discussed the fact that you DO
> >> >> >> violate it in regards to wildlife just as everyone else does, but
> >> >> >> you do NOT promote it for livestock. So. Now we're trying to
> >> >> >> find the supposed ethical superiority of your livestock elimination
> >> >> >> objective.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, I do financially support violations of the rights of wildlife. I
> >> >> >do promote rights for livestock. I do not want to eliminate livestock,
> >> >> >I just want their rights to be respected. If, as a result of that, no
> >> >> >more livestock are brought into existence, I don't see a problem with
> >> >> >that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you afraid to admit that you want to see no more livestock?
> >> >> If that's what you're in favor of--and it clearly is--what makes you
> >> >> ashamed to just say so?
> >> >
> >> >As I've explained patiently a number of times, what I want is for us to
> >> >stop violating the rights of livestock. I'm not in any way ashamed of
> >> >my position, I'm being completely upfront about it.
> >>
> >> What you want would prevent livestock from existing at all, and
> >> you are VERY! obviously ashamed to admit it.
> >
> >It would remove the main motivation that humans have for bringing
> >livestock into existence. So it might mean that we don't bring any more
> >of them into existence. I am not in the least ashamed to admit this.
>
> So far you still are, but maybe you'll get over it. You should, that's for
> sure!
>

Why do you think I'm ashamed? What's your evidence?

> >I don't see a problem with it.
>
> You need to just say that you don't want livestock to live at all, regardless
> of how good their lives could be, and regardless of whether or not it would
> be better for the environment than crop production. THAT is what you
> promote, and you need to be proud of it!!! Instead you won't even admit
> it, much less act proud. You act more ashamed than proud of the very
> thing you claim to be encouraging! We keep seeing more and more how
> pathetic this whole thing is.
> ...

I've told you exactly what I advocate and I'm not in the least ashamed
of it.

> >> you should either be proud of it, or change you
> >> pov somehow. Don't encourage something and then deny it unless
> >> you want to be like Goo. It's one of the bigger reasons for people to
> >> think badly about "aras".
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On 22 May 2006 14:41:53 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 21 May 2006 16:49:38 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 15 May 2006 16:45:56 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 7 May 2006 16:52:01 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 5 May 2006 17:33:24 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > I apologize if there has been a misunderstanding, but I think
>> >> >> >> >> > you're
>> >> >> >> >> > not being very forthcoming about what you actually do believe.
>> >> >> >> >> ================================
>> >> >> >> >> As far as this NG goes, I have. Animals do not have rights.
>> >> >> >> >> Never will. And, you continue to prove that point for me.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Delusion. If you want to prove that point, you'll have to come up with
>> >> >> >> >an argument on the subject.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> They don't have rights now, that's apparent. If there "is" any
>> >> >> >> right to life, we have already discussed the fact that you DO
>> >> >> >> violate it in regards to wildlife just as everyone else does, but
>> >> >> >> you do NOT promote it for livestock. So. Now we're trying to
>> >> >> >> find the supposed ethical superiority of your livestock elimination
>> >> >> >> objective.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yes, I do financially support violations of the rights of wildlife. I
>> >> >> >do promote rights for livestock. I do not want to eliminate livestock,
>> >> >> >I just want their rights to be respected. If, as a result of that, no
>> >> >> >more livestock are brought into existence, I don't see a problem with
>> >> >> >that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why are you afraid to admit that you want to see no more livestock?
>> >> >> If that's what you're in favor of--and it clearly is--what makes you
>> >> >> ashamed to just say so?
>> >> >
>> >> >As I've explained patiently a number of times, what I want is for us to
>> >> >stop violating the rights of livestock. I'm not in any way ashamed of
>> >> >my position, I'm being completely upfront about it.
>> >>
>> >> What you want would prevent livestock from existing at all, and
>> >> you are VERY! obviously ashamed to admit it.
>> >
>> >It would remove the main motivation that humans have for bringing
>> >livestock into existence. So it might mean that we don't bring any more
>> >of them into existence. I am not in the least ashamed to admit this.
>>
>> So far you still are, but maybe you'll get over it. You should, that's for
>> sure!
>>
>
>Why do you think I'm ashamed? What's your evidence?

The fact that you're ashamed to admit what you promote of course.
Duh.

>> >I don't see a problem with it.
>>
>> You need to just say that you don't want livestock to live at all, regardless
>> of how good their lives could be, and regardless of whether or not it would
>> be better for the environment than crop production. THAT is what you
>> promote, and you need to be proud of it!!! Instead you won't even admit
>> it, much less act proud. You act more ashamed than proud of the very
>> thing you claim to be encouraging! We keep seeing more and more how
>> pathetic this whole thing is.
>> ...
>
>I've told you exactly what I advocate and I'm not in the least ashamed
>of it.

You have tried to bullshit me by pretending to somehow promote the right
to life of potential beings you want to prevent from having any life at all. I find
it disgusting! In fact, it's because of that disgusting and dishonest sort of lying
that I got involved with these ngs in the first place. I had a very low opinion
of you "aras" because of that very lie before I ever started posting, and of
course it has done nothing but get lower and lower the more I learn....

>> >> you should either be proud of it, or change you
>> >> pov somehow. Don't encourage something and then deny it unless
>> >> you want to be like Goo. It's one of the bigger reasons for people to
>> >> think badly about "aras".
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better