<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:39:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote> Veg*ns and people who have faith in the gross mi$nomer
>>>>> "animal rights"
>>>>
>>>>It's not a misnomer. It's often misguided, maybe, but there is no
>>>>misnomer.
>>>>To call it a misnomer is to suggest that their vision of a world without
>>>>livestock somehow violates some animal rights or causes harm or loss to
>>>>animals, and that is completely false.
>>>
>>> No, what it suggests is that bringing about the elimination
>>> of domestic animals is completely different than it would be to
>>> provide them with rights, and we know it. Since the objective is
>>> completely different than what the name suggests:
>>
>>It's not different at all, everyone knows what the AR movement wants. They
>>want *no livestock to be born*, NOT livestock eliminated.
>
> They certainly do want them eliminated.

THEY want that they never exist in the first place, YOU want them
"eliminated", i.e. killed, so you can eat them.

What THEY want harms no animal. What WE want kills animals, not to mention
causes many to suffer.

You are not establishing any moral high ground here nitwit.

> Stop lying. But then
> again I guess if you were to stop lying, you couldn't respond at
> all.

What I just said was the truth.

>
>>Stop being so
>>****ing stupid.
>>
>>You know you are such a ****ing hypocrite. YOU want these animals
>>eliminated. You want them prodded up ramps, bolted throught the head, hung
>>by the legs, gutted and cut up into pieces so you can eat them. You have a
>>lot of nerve criticizing someone who doesn't want to see animals born
>
> · Because there are so many different situations
> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
> cruelty or abuse at all.
>
> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
> groups of animals in the same way.
> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
> groups in the same way. ·

I agree with part of that, but it is all beside the point, you still can't
criticize vegetarians for wishing that these animals never exist in the
first place, it is not a "misnomer" or anything culpable, it's just their
preference.
>
>>to be
>>treated that way. Just enjoy your ****ing meat like I do and stop being
>>such
>>a complete moron.
>>
>>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
>>> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
>>> of animal use." - Dutch
>>
>>SO ****ING WHAT?
>
> So obviously you're aware that they are tricking people into
> donating money to something they don't agree with

I never said they tricked anyone, their stated goals are right out there for
anyone to see.

I don't agree with everything the political party I vote for stands for
either, but I support enough things to support them.

[..]

> What do you think would be wrong with referring to the
> objective to eliminate domestic animals as: The elimination
> objective?

Nothing, as long as you don't believe or attempt to portray in some bizarre
foray into the twilight zone that such an objective would be harmful to any
animals.

There is nothing inherently wrong with "the elimination objective", except
that it runs counter to my interests and wishes as a consumer of meat, among
other things. What *is* wrong with the AR objective in my view is a lot of
the inflammatory and twisted rhetoric that accompanies it.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:39:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote> Veg*ns and people who have faith in the gross mi$nomer
>>>>>> "animal rights"
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not a misnomer. It's often misguided, maybe, but there is no
>>>>>misnomer.
>>>>>To call it a misnomer is to suggest that their vision of a world without
>>>>>livestock somehow violates some animal rights or causes harm or loss to
>>>>>animals, and that is completely false.
>>>>
>>>> No, what it suggests is that bringing about the elimination
>>>> of domestic animals is completely different than it would be to
>>>> provide them with rights, and we know it. Since the objective is
>>>> completely different than what the name suggests:
>>>
>>>It's not different at all, everyone knows what the AR movement wants. They
>>>want *no livestock to be born*, NOT livestock eliminated.
>>
>> They certainly do want them eliminated.
>
>THEY want that they never exist in the first place, YOU want them
>"eliminated", i.e. killed,

You need to explain why we should consider that ethically
superior to providing livestock with decent lives.

>so you can eat them.
>
>What THEY want harms no animal.

Vegans contribute to the majority of the same animal deaths
that most people do. All they avoid are things that provide life
and death for livestock.

>What WE want kills animals, not to mention
>causes many to suffer.
>
>You are not establishing any moral high ground here nitwit.
>
>> Stop lying. But then
>> again I guess if you were to stop lying, you couldn't respond at
>> all.
>
>What I just said was the truth.

No you lied like you always do, since animals are killed in
crop production, etc....

>>>Stop being so
>>>****ing stupid.
>>>
>>>You know you are such a ****ing hypocrite. YOU want these animals
>>>eliminated. You want them prodded up ramps, bolted throught the head, hung
>>>by the legs, gutted and cut up into pieces so you can eat them. You have a
>>>lot of nerve criticizing someone who doesn't want to see animals born
>>
>> · Because there are so many different situations
>> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>> cruelty or abuse at all.
>>
>> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
>> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
>> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
>> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
>> groups of animals in the same way.
>> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
>> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
>> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
>> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
>> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
>> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
>> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
>> groups in the same way. ·
>
>I agree with part of that, but it is all beside the point, you still can't
>criticize vegetarians for wishing that these animals never exist in the
>first place, it is not a "misnomer"

Suggesting that what misnomer addicts want would provide
livestock with rights is a lie, and refering to the elimination
objective as "animal rights" is a horrible misnomer as well as
being a sort of lie.

>or anything culpable, it's just their
>preference.

I quoted you explaining why they prefer to lie.

>>>to be
>>>treated that way. Just enjoy your ****ing meat like I do and stop being
>>>such
>>>a complete moron.
>>>
>>>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
>>>> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
>>>> of animal use." - Dutch
>>>
>>>SO ****ING WHAT?
>>
>> So obviously you're aware that they are tricking people into
>> donating money to something they don't agree with
>
>I never said they tricked anyone,

LOL! It was a shock when you explained why they lie to begin
with, but to go into details like that about the lie is certainly
more than anyone could ever expect from you.

>their stated goals are right out there for
>anyone to see.
>
>I don't agree with everything the political party I vote for stands for
>either, but I support enough things to support them.
>
>[..]
>
>> What do you think would be wrong with referring to the
>> objective to eliminate domestic animals as: The elimination
>> objective?
>
>Nothing,

I'm surprised you would allow such a degree of honesty.

>as long as you don't believe or attempt to portray in some bizarre
>foray into the twilight zone that such an objective would be harmful to any
>animals.
>
>There is nothing inherently wrong with "the elimination objective",

That doesn't mean providing decent AW couldn't be ethically
equivalent or superior, which is what I suggest and you people of
course have always maniacally opposed.

>except
>that it runs counter to my interests and wishes as a consumer of meat, among
>other things. What *is* wrong with the AR objective in my view is a lot of
>the inflammatory and twisted rhetoric that accompanies it.

All the lying is wrong as well as the use of the gross
misnomer itself.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:39:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote> Veg*ns and people who have faith in the gross
>>>>>>mi$nomer
>>>>>>> "animal rights"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not a misnomer. It's often misguided, maybe, but there is no
>>>>>>misnomer.
>>>>>>To call it a misnomer is to suggest that their vision of a world
>>>>>>without
>>>>>>livestock somehow violates some animal rights or causes harm or loss
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>animals, and that is completely false.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, what it suggests is that bringing about the elimination
>>>>> of domestic animals is completely different than it would be to
>>>>> provide them with rights, and we know it. Since the objective is
>>>>> completely different than what the name suggests:
>>>>
>>>>It's not different at all, everyone knows what the AR movement wants.
>>>>They
>>>>want *no livestock to be born*, NOT livestock eliminated.
>>>
>>> They certainly do want them eliminated.
>>
>>THEY want that they never exist in the first place, YOU want them
>>"eliminated", i.e. killed,
>
> You need to explain why we should consider that ethically
> superior to providing livestock with decent lives.

I don't need to do anything of the kind because I never made that argument.

You're the one lodging this complaint against vegans that they are being
selfish in their lifestyles by denying life to animals by not consuming
meat. YOU need to explain this complaint, what animals are being harmed that
would make a vegan "selfish" for advocating "elimination".

>
>>so you can eat them.
>>
>>What THEY want harms no animal.
>
> Vegans contribute to the majority of the same animal deaths
> that most people do. All they avoid are things that provide life
> and death for livestock.

That's not the issue. What they want, the "elimination" of livestock breeds,
would not harm a single animal. To call their desire selfish or to complain
that it "denies life" to animals, is ludicrous.

>
>>What WE want kills animals, not to mention
>>causes many to suffer.
>>
>>You are not establishing any moral high ground here nitwit.
>>
>>> Stop lying. But then
>>> again I guess if you were to stop lying, you couldn't respond at
>>> all.
>>
>>What I just said was the truth.
>
> No you lied like you always do, since animals are killed in
> crop production, etc....

SO WHAT?? Those are not the animals under discussion here.

>>>>Stop being so
>>>>****ing stupid.
>>>>
>>>>You know you are such a ****ing hypocrite. YOU want these animals
>>>>eliminated. You want them prodded up ramps, bolted throught the head,
>>>>hung
>>>>by the legs, gutted and cut up into pieces so you can eat them. You have
>>>>a
>>>>lot of nerve criticizing someone who doesn't want to see animals born
>>>
>>> · Because there are so many different situations
>>> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>>> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>>> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>>> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>>> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>>> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>>> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>>> cruelty or abuse at all.
>>>
>>> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
>>> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
>>> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
>>> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
>>> groups of animals in the same way.
>>> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
>>> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
>>> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
>>> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
>>> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
>>> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
>>> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
>>> groups in the same way. ·
>>
>>I agree with part of that, but it is all beside the point, you still can't
>>criticize vegetarians for wishing that these animals never exist in the
>>first place, it is not a "misnomer"
>
> Suggesting that what misnomer addicts want would provide
> livestock with rights is a lie, and refering to the elimination
> objective as "animal rights" is a horrible misnomer as well as
> being a sort of lie.

It's not a misnomer or a lie. It is simply a desire that there be no animals
living in captivity, and that WOULD create a situation where animals had
rights, i.e. the right to live without being in captivity.

>>or anything culpable, it's just their
>>preference.
>
> I quoted you explaining why they prefer to lie.

They're not lying, misguided maybe, deluded maybe, but not lying, and not
selfish towards animals.

>
>>>>to be
>>>>treated that way. Just enjoy your ****ing meat like I do and stop being
>>>>such
>>>>a complete moron.
>>>>
>>>>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
>>>>> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
>>>>> of animal use." - Dutch
>>>>
>>>>SO ****ING WHAT?
>>>
>>> So obviously you're aware that they are tricking people into
>>> donating money to something they don't agree with
>>
>>I never said they tricked anyone,
>
> LOL! It was a shock when you explained why they lie to begin
> with, but to go into details like that about the lie is certainly
> more than anyone could ever expect from you.

They aren't lying, PeTA never claimed to be in favor of raising livestock.


>
>>their stated goals are right out there for
>>anyone to see.
>>
>>I don't agree with everything the political party I vote for stands for
>>either, but I support enough things to support them.
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>> What do you think would be wrong with referring to the
>>> objective to eliminate domestic animals as: The elimination
>>> objective?
>>
>>Nothing,
>
> I'm surprised you would allow such a degree of honesty.
>
>>as long as you don't believe or attempt to portray in some bizarre
>>foray into the twilight zone that such an objective would be harmful to
>>any
>>animals.

Yet you imply just that when you call elimination "selfish".

>>There is nothing inherently wrong with "the elimination objective",
>
> That doesn't mean providing decent AW couldn't be ethically
> equivalent or superior, which is what I suggest and you people of
> course have always maniacally opposed.

I've never opposed AW, nor do most ARAs, and I have not suggested that AR is
superior to consuming meat from ethically raised animals. What I oppose is
this nonsensical notion that somehow the argument in favor of using animals
for food and other products is strengthened because the livestock we turn
into consumer goods "get to experience life", and the argument for veganism
is weakened because no livestock "get to experience life" as a result. That
whole line of argument is irrational and stupid, and you can't seem to get
it out of your head.

>
>>except
>>that it runs counter to my interests and wishes as a consumer of meat,
>>among
>>other things. What *is* wrong with the AR objective in my view is a lot of
>>the inflammatory and twisted rhetoric that accompanies it.
>
> All the lying is wrong as well


If you're so concerned about honesty start by acknowledging that by no
reasonable measure do most livestock animals' lives have "positive value".
The vast majority are, these days, at best, bleak, at worst, I don't even
want to contemplate it Therefore vegans, by opposing the raising of
livestock, are advocating something mostly positive, many fewer animals
living meaningless horrible lives.

> as the use of the gross misnomer itself.

There is no misnomer. No potential livestock have a right to be born, what
nonsense.

On 5 Apr 2010 20:15:46 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:

>Every time they put cattle out here they start eating poisonous
>plants and dying. :-)
>
>We train hard and we have very good teachers.

Any "teacher" that teaches students to poison cattle is far
from "good". But I thank you for again showing "Dutch" without
question that you people do NOT care in the least about the
animals, as I've been pointing out to him for years. All you care
about is yourself and the fact that it bothers you that other
people do consume meat, and you don't give the slightest damn
about anything other than yourself. "Dutch" is exactly the same
in that. You two are the same except that "Dutch" lies about
being a vegan eliminationist, while you still admit to being one.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:48:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:39:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote> Veg*ns and people who have faith in the gross
>>>>>>>>>mi$nomer
>>>>>>>>>> "animal rights"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's not a misnomer. It's often misguided, maybe, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>misnomer.
>>>>>>>>>To call it a misnomer is to suggest that their vision of a world
>>>>>>>>>without
>>>>>>>>>livestock somehow violates some animal rights or causes harm or loss
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>animals, and that is completely false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, what it suggests is that bringing about the elimination
>>>>>>>> of domestic animals is completely different than it would be to
>>>>>>>> provide them with rights, and we know it. Since the objective is
>>>>>>>> completely different than what the name suggests:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's not different at all, everyone knows what the AR movement wants.
>>>>>>>They
>>>>>>>want *no livestock to be born*, NOT livestock eliminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They certainly do want them eliminated.
>>>>>
>>>>>THEY want that they never exist in the first place, YOU want them
>>>>>"eliminated", i.e. killed,
>>>>
>>>> You need to explain why we should consider that ethically
>>>> superior to providing livestock with decent lives.
>>>
>>>I don't need to do anything of the kind
>>
>> LOL!!!!! Neither can "they". LOL!!!!
>
>Ohhh. hahaha. I get it. snork
>
>If someone says "Having no livestock at all is ethically superior to
>providing livestock with decent lives" then that person would be obliged to
>defend that statement.

Yes, just as you are obliged to try explaining how you want
people to think of your anti-consideration as being ethically
superior to having consideration. And just as "they" can't
explain their apparent absurdity, you can't explain yours either.
.. . .
>> They can certainly be what you and I would consider bleak
>> while still being of positive value to the animals, but you can't
>> afford to let yourself consider that fact because it works
>> against elimination.
>
>There's that other dishonest argument

I made two points, both of which are obvious and true.

>I didn't mention earlier, the
>strawman.
>
>>>at worst, I don't even
>>>want to contemplate it
>>
>> The worst is ALL you are willing to consider, while you deny
>> the fact that many have decent lives because acknowledging the
>> fact that many do works against elimination.
>
>I don't WANT elimination.

I believe you're lying, since if you did not want elimination
you would have NO reason to try restricting people from
considering when livestock have lives of positive value. In
contrast to that, since you do want elimination that fact and
that alone gives you reason to want to impose your restriction.

On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:

[delete a lot of meat-pig propaganda]

The animal foods addicts are trashing this planet in order
to produce their dietary drugs.

This is a crime.

But there's more to it: By brainwashing people into believing
that only animal foods taste good and will make them healthy
(both lies), they have trapped them into a very expensive
dietstyle requiring enormous amounts of land and water and
resources and energy and labor.

(Due to enormous subsidies and exploited cheap labor, the average
American doesn't pay anywhere near what animal foods actually cost.)

An herby can live of a few thousand square feet of garden in
their backyard and they can't be forced to become greedhead
capitalists in order to support their diets.

This is one of the main reasons that herbies and vegans scare
animal food junkies.

Sid

On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2010 20:15:46 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:
>
>>Every time they put cattle out here they start eating poisonous
>>plants and dying. :-)
>>
>>We train hard and we have very good teachers.
>
> Any "teacher" that teaches students to poison cattle is far
> from "good".

I disagree. So do millions of other herbies. And we don't care
what you think about it. Your diet is trashing this planet and
you have to be stopped.

Our teachers teach us guerilla warfare stretegies and tactics
and tools, tracking, wilderness survival, hand-to-hand combat,
pursuit and evasion, and all the other skills we need to protect
ourselves and the Earth from brutal, Earth-raping imperialists
like you Americans.

The training is great fun. The only thing we don't study are
things that would kill or cripple people. That's wrong. Fortunately,
one doesn't need to kill or cripple people to stop them from doing
things they shouldn't be doing. Usually, you don't even need to
confront them. Sabotage works wonderfully.

We've killed a lot of cattle. It doesn't take much to drive off
ranchers. Their profit margins are very slim. No way to blame
us: No witnesses and no way to even prove that a human agency
was involved at all. Cattle are as stupid and greedy as their
owners and will eat toxic plants if they are growing among
stuff they normally eat. Transplanting the toxic plants is
easy as pie.

[delete]

Like all liars, you are very long-winded. The truth can be
stated in just a few words.

Sid

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:48:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:vri4r5hp6evfk04olmqkemcsbumj5htemu@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:39:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote> Veg*ns and people who have faith in the gross
>>>>>>>>>>mi$nomer
>>>>>>>>>>> "animal rights"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's not a misnomer. It's often misguided, maybe, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>>misnomer.
>>>>>>>>>>To call it a misnomer is to suggest that their vision of a world
>>>>>>>>>>without
>>>>>>>>>>livestock somehow violates some animal rights or causes harm or
>>>>>>>>>>loss
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>animals, and that is completely false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, what it suggests is that bringing about the elimination
>>>>>>>>> of domestic animals is completely different than it would be to
>>>>>>>>> provide them with rights, and we know it. Since the objective is
>>>>>>>>> completely different than what the name suggests:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's not different at all, everyone knows what the AR movement
>>>>>>>>wants.
>>>>>>>>They
>>>>>>>>want *no livestock to be born*, NOT livestock eliminated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They certainly do want them eliminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>THEY want that they never exist in the first place, YOU want them
>>>>>>"eliminated", i.e. killed,
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to explain why we should consider that ethically
>>>>> superior to providing livestock with decent lives.
>>>>
>>>>I don't need to do anything of the kind
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!! Neither can "they". LOL!!!!
>>
>>Ohhh. hahaha. I get it. snork
>>
>>If someone says "Having no livestock at all is ethically superior to
>>providing livestock with decent lives" then that person would be obliged
>>to
>>defend that statement.
>
> Yes, just as you are obliged to try explaining how you want
> people to think of your anti-consideration as being ethically
> superior to having consideration. And just as "they" can't
> explain their apparent absurdity, you can't explain yours either.
> . . .
>>> They can certainly be what you and I would consider bleak
>>> while still being of positive value to the animals, but you can't
>>> afford to let yourself consider that fact because it works
>>> against elimination.
>>
>>There's that other dishonest argument
>
> I made two points, both of which are obvious and true.
>
>>I didn't mention earlier, the
>>strawman.
>>
>>>>at worst, I don't even
>>>>want to contemplate it
>>>
>>> The worst is ALL you are willing to consider, while you deny
>>> the fact that many have decent lives because acknowledging the
>>> fact that many do works against elimination.
>>
>>I don't WANT elimination.
>
> I believe you're lying, since if you did not want elimination
> you would have NO reason to try restricting people from
> considering when livestock have lives of positive value. In
> contrast to that, since you do want elimination that fact and
> that alone gives you reason to want to impose your restriction.

I have an excellent reason, it is a self-serving, circular and useless thing
to consider.

On 5 Apr 2010 22:51:29 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:

>On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2010 20:15:46 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:
>>
>>>Every time they put cattle out here they start eating poisonous
>>>plants and dying. :-)
>>>
>>>We train hard and we have very good teachers.
>>
>> Any "teacher" that teaches students to poison cattle is far
>> from "good".
>
>I disagree. So do millions of other herbies.

That's because you only care about yourselves.

>And we don't care
>what you think about it.

That's because you only care about yourselves.

>Your diet is trashing this planet

Yours is too. Your whole lifestyle is.

>We've killed a lot of cattle.

That's because you only care about yourselves.

On Apr 5, 4:16*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>
> [delete a lot of meat-pig propaganda]
>
> The animal foods addicts are trashing this planet in order
> to produce their dietary drugs.
>
> This is a crime.
>
> But there's more to it: By brainwashing people into believing
> that only animal foods taste good and will make them healthy
> (both lies), they have trapped them into a very expensive
> dietstyle requiring enormous amounts of land and water and
> resources and energy and labor.
>
> (Due to enormous subsidies and exploited cheap labor, the average
> American doesn't pay anywhere near what animal foods actually cost.)
>
> An herby can live of a few thousand square feet of garden in
> their backyard and they can't be forced to become greedhead
> capitalists in order to support their diets.
>
> This is one of the main reasons that herbies and vegans scare
> animal food junkies.
>
> Sid

You are deficient in B vitamins and animal sourced proteins. Which
explains your delusional and high-strung temperament.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:53:15 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar
> wrote:

>On Apr 5, 4:16*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>> On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>
>> [delete a lot of meat-pig propaganda]
>>
>> The animal foods addicts are trashing this planet in order
>> to produce their dietary drugs.
>>
>> This is a crime.
>>
>> But there's more to it: By brainwashing people into believing
>> that only animal foods taste good and will make them healthy
>> (both lies), they have trapped them into a very expensive
>> dietstyle requiring enormous amounts of land and water and
>> resources and energy and labor.
>>
>> (Due to enormous subsidies and exploited cheap labor, the average
>> American doesn't pay anywhere near what animal foods actually cost.)
>>
>> An herby can live of a few thousand square feet of garden in
>> their backyard and they can't be forced to become greedhead
>> capitalists in order to support their diets.
>>
>> This is one of the main reasons that herbies and vegans scare
>> animal food junkies.
>>
>> Sid
>
>You are deficient in B vitamins and animal sourced proteins. Which
>explains your delusional and high-strung temperament.

Y'know one of the big things that the cults used to do to followers
such as in the famous Jim Jones cult, was to deny protein to the
followers. It made them very "pliable" and easy to manipulate.

On Apr 6, 3:58*pm, First.Post > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:53:15 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> >> On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>
> >> [delete a lot of meat-pig propaganda]
>
> >> The animal foods addicts are trashing this planet in order
> >> to produce their dietary drugs.
>
> >> This is a crime.
>
> >> But there's more to it: By brainwashing people into believing
> >> that only animal foods taste good and will make them healthy
> >> (both lies), they have trapped them into a very expensive
> >> dietstyle requiring enormous amounts of land and water and
> >> resources and energy and labor.
>
> >> (Due to enormous subsidies and exploited cheap labor, the average
> >> American doesn't pay anywhere near what animal foods actually cost.)
>
> >> An herby can live of a few thousand square feet of garden in
> >> their backyard and they can't be forced to become greedhead
> >> capitalists in order to support their diets.
>
> >> This is one of the main reasons that herbies and vegans scare
> >> animal food junkies.
>
> >> Sid
>
> >You are deficient in B vitamins and animal sourced proteins. Which
> >explains your delusional and high-strung temperament.
>
> Y'know one of the big things that the cults used to do to followers
> such as in the famous Jim Jones cult, was to deny protein to the
> followers. *It made them very "pliable" and easy to manipulate.

Veganism, by definition, is a deficient diet.

On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:

> On 5 Apr 2010 22:51:29 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:
>
>>On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Apr 2010 20:15:46 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Every time they put cattle out here they start eating
>>>>poisonous plants and dying. :-)
>>>>
>>>>We train hard and we have very good teachers.
>>>
>>> Any "teacher" that teaches students to poison cattle is
>>> far from "good".
>>
>>I disagree. So do millions of other herbies.
>
> That's because you only care about yourselves.

Says someone who has about 16 pounds of protein-rich grains
and legumes fed to animals to produce 1 pound of animal flesh
to satisfy his addiction while about 16,000 children die
of starvation every day around the world.

It is clearly a waste of time trying to reason with you.
You don't even know what reason is. Or morality.

Welcome to my killfile. I'll bet I've already killfiled you
under other aliases.

If you don't like how I think or live or what I post, do
feel free to eat shit.


[delete]

Sid

On 6 Apr 2010 23:17:03 +0200, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:

>On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>
>> On 5 Apr 2010 22:51:29 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:
>>
>>>On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 Apr 2010 20:15:46 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Every time they put cattle out here they start eating
>>>>>poisonous plants and dying. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>We train hard and we have very good teachers.
>>>>
>>>> Any "teacher" that teaches students to poison cattle is
>>>> far from "good".
>>>
>>>I disagree. So do millions of other herbies.
>>
>> That's because you only care about yourselves.
>
>Says someone who has about 16 pounds of protein-rich grains
>and legumes fed to animals to produce 1 pound of animal flesh
>to satisfy his addiction while about 16,000 children die
>of starvation every day around the world.
>
>It is clearly a waste of time trying to reason with you.
>You don't even know what reason is. Or morality.
>
>Welcome to my killfile. I'll bet I've already killfiled you
>under other aliases.
>
>If you don't like how I think or live or what I post, do
>feel free to eat shit.
>
>
>[delete]
>
>Sid
>
Since you're all about usenet etiquette then you should have no
problem not posting this off topic bullshit to alt.global-warming.




"If con is the opposite of pro then is congress the opposite of progress?"

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar
> wrote:

>On Apr 6, 3:58*pm, First.Post > wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:53:15 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>> >> On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>
>> >> [delete a lot of meat-pig propaganda]
>>
>> >> The animal foods addicts are trashing this planet in order
>> >> to produce their dietary drugs.
>>
>> >> This is a crime.
>>
>> >> But there's more to it: By brainwashing people into believing
>> >> that only animal foods taste good and will make them healthy
>> >> (both lies), they have trapped them into a very expensive
>> >> dietstyle requiring enormous amounts of land and water and
>> >> resources and energy and labor.
>>
>> >> (Due to enormous subsidies and exploited cheap labor, the average
>> >> American doesn't pay anywhere near what animal foods actually cost.)
>>
>> >> An herby can live of a few thousand square feet of garden in
>> >> their backyard and they can't be forced to become greedhead
>> >> capitalists in order to support their diets.
>>
>> >> This is one of the main reasons that herbies and vegans scare
>> >> animal food junkies.
>>
>> >> Sid
>>
>> >You are deficient in B vitamins and animal sourced proteins. Which
>> >explains your delusional and high-strung temperament.
>>
>> Y'know one of the big things that the cults used to do to followers
>> such as in the famous Jim Jones cult, was to deny protein to the
>> followers. *It made them very "pliable" and easy to manipulate.
>
>Veganism, by definition, is a deficient diet.

Unless you're a wabbit.
huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhu.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:53:15 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar
> wrote:

>On Apr 5, 4:16*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>> On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>
>> [delete a lot of meat-pig propaganda]
>>
>> The animal foods addicts are trashing this planet in order
>> to produce their dietary drugs.
>>
>> This is a crime.
>>
>> But there's more to it: By brainwashing people into believing
>> that only animal foods taste good and will make them healthy
>> (both lies), they have trapped them into a very expensive
>> dietstyle requiring enormous amounts of land and water and
>> resources and energy and labor.
>>
>> (Due to enormous subsidies and exploited cheap labor, the average
>> American doesn't pay anywhere near what animal foods actually cost.)
>>
>> An herby can live of a few thousand square feet of garden in
>> their backyard and they can't be forced to become greedhead
>> capitalists in order to support their diets.
>>
>> This is one of the main reasons that herbies and vegans scare
>> animal food junkies.
>>
>> Sid
>
>You are deficient in B vitamins and animal sourced proteins. Which
>explains your delusional and high-strung temperament.

In addition to that, it seems that a person must have some
severe mental limitations in order to fall for the misnomer in
the first place. So you have mentally challenged people who eat
a diet that limits their mentality even more. That could explain
why so much of what they claim seems absurd....because it is.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:53:15 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar
> > wrote:
>
>>On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>>> On alt.food.vegan, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>
>>> [delete a lot of meat-pig propaganda]
>>>
>>> The animal foods addicts are trashing this planet in order
>>> to produce their dietary drugs.
>>>
>>> This is a crime.
>>>
>>> But there's more to it: By brainwashing people into believing
>>> that only animal foods taste good and will make them healthy
>>> (both lies), they have trapped them into a very expensive
>>> dietstyle requiring enormous amounts of land and water and
>>> resources and energy and labor.
>>>
>>> (Due to enormous subsidies and exploited cheap labor, the average
>>> American doesn't pay anywhere near what animal foods actually cost.)
>>>
>>> An herby can live of a few thousand square feet of garden in
>>> their backyard and they can't be forced to become greedhead
>>> capitalists in order to support their diets.
>>>
>>> This is one of the main reasons that herbies and vegans scare
>>> animal food junkies.
>>>
>>> Sid
>>
>>You are deficient in B vitamins and animal sourced proteins. Which
>>explains your delusional and high-strung temperament.
>
> In addition to that, it seems that a person must have some
> severe mental limitations in order to fall for the misnomer in
> the first place. So you have mentally challenged people who eat
> a diet that limits their mentality even more. That could explain
> why so much of what they claim seems absurd....because it is.

Could be true, but you're worse. What's your excuse?

On 4/7/2010 12:21 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:53:15 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar
> > wrote:
>
>> On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, Sidney > wrote:
>>> On alt.food.vegan, dh@.<dh@> wrote:
>>>
>>> [delete a lot of meat-pig propaganda]
>>>
>>> The animal foods addicts are trashing this planet in order
>>> to produce their dietary drugs.
>>>
>>> This is a crime.
>>>
>>> But there's more to it: By brainwashing people into believing
>>> that only animal foods taste good and will make them healthy
>>> (both lies), they have trapped them into a very expensive
>>> dietstyle requiring enormous amounts of land and water and
>>> resources and energy and labor.
>>>
>>> (Due to enormous subsidies and exploited cheap labor, the average
>>> American doesn't pay anywhere near what animal foods actually cost.)
>>>
>>> An herby can live of a few thousand square feet of garden in
>>> their backyard and they can't be forced to become greedhead
>>> capitalists in order to support their diets.
>>>
>>> This is one of the main reasons that herbies and vegans scare
>>> animal food junkies.
>>>
>>> Sid
>>
>> You are deficient in B vitamins and animal sourced proteins. Which
>> explains your delusional and high-strung temperament.
>
> In addition to that, it seems that a person must have some
> severe mental limitations

You, of course, have the most severe mental limitations.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On 4/5/2010 1:38 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:48:41 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:38 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:21 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:39:57 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:00 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote> Veg*ns and people who have faith in the gross
>>>>>>>>>> mi$nomer
>>>>>>>>>>> "animal rights"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not a misnomer. It's often misguided, maybe, but there is no
>>>>>>>>>> misnomer.
>>>>>>>>>> To call it a misnomer is to suggest that their vision of a world
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> livestock somehow violates some animal rights or causes harm or loss
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> animals, and that is completely false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, what it suggests is that bringing about the elimination
>>>>>>>>> of domestic animals is completely different than it would be to
>>>>>>>>> provide them with rights, and we know it. Since the objective is
>>>>>>>>> completely different than what the name suggests:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not different at all, everyone knows what the AR movement wants.
>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>> want *no livestock to be born*, NOT livestock eliminated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They certainly do want them eliminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THEY want that they never exist in the first place, YOU want them
>>>>>> "eliminated", i.e. killed,
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to explain why we should consider that ethically
>>>>> superior to providing livestock with decent lives.
>>>>
>>>> I don't need to do anything of the kind
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!! Neither can "they". LOL!!!!
>>
>> Ohhh. hahaha. I get it. snork
>>
>> If someone says "Having no livestock at all is ethically superior to
>> providing livestock with decent lives" then that person would be obliged to
>> defend that statement.
>
> Yes, just as you are obliged to try explaining how you want
> people to think of your anti-consideration

You have no consideration for the lives of animals. You fake it.

--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

On 4/5/2010 12:54 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2010 20:15:46 +0100, Sidney Lambe
> > wrote:
>
>> Every time they put cattle out here they start eating poisonous
>> plants and dying. :-)
>>
>> We train hard and we have very good teachers.
>
> Any "teacher" that teaches students to poison cattle is far
> from "good". But I thank you for again showing "Dutch" without
> question that you people do NOT care in the least about the
> animals,

You don't care about the animals, as I've been showing for over a decade.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs