<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.