 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
The Logic of the Talking Pig
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
wrote: >> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder" >> >>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and >best-known >> >>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals >> >>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows: >Killing >> >>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed >but >> >>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its >existence >> >>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for >every >> >>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought >into >> >>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy >its >> >>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see >> >>>> Nozick 38). > >The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared >to never having existed. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral >right to >> >>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid >justification for >> >>>killing it. >> >> >> >> No justification is needed. > >You CLEARLY seem to feel one is needed. > >> >> Regardless of that, billions of animals are >> >> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those >same >> >> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to >eat. >> > >> >That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to >point it >> >out. >> >> It is consideration for animals which > >It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary "benefit" >they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living, >compared with never living at all. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic >> >>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including >humans) are >> >>>"brought into being". >> >> >> >> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it >does ANY >> >> other set of circumstances... >> > >> >There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where >we >> >factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.." >> >> That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including >humans, pets, >> etc... > >Gobbledygook. > >> >> >when assessing the morality of killing them. >> >> That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you >still >> want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else. > >Food animals are not in a "unique" situation when considering the >morality of whether or not they are born to begin with. Life is not a >benefit to them. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >NONE, ZERO. >> > >> >>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals >for food >> >>>is needed, >> >> >> >> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you >"ARAs" >> >> want >> >> people to consider. >> > >> >It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one. >> > >> >>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal >> >>>Rights" basis in their thinking, >> >> >> >> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having >any life >> >> at all. >> > >> >So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights" >position >> >that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think >their >> >getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights >position? >> >> I don't believe any animals have rights. > >You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have >a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they >want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is >absurd for you to claim you don't believe this. > >> >>>albeit turned rather upside-down. >> >>> >> >>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking >> >>>> pig "logic > >It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want >to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they >have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock >for >> >some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry, >and you >> >don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse. > >Exactly right. It IS sophistry, and he obviously isn't intelligent >enough to appreciate it. > >> >>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make >> >>>> The Logic of the > >Causing pigs to be born is not conferring any benefit upon them. If >one wants to eat pork, and if one feels a need to justify killing pigs >to obtain pork - and you CLEARLY feel the need for such justification - >it is absurd to think causing the pigs to "benefit" from having lived >is a suitable justification. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >>> >> >>>They are capable of some of them, >> >> >> >> Not even one of them. >> > >> >I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth, >> >> I don't believe that. > >It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in >ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity. > >> >> >by nature they are >> >very clean animals. >> >> I don't believe that either. > >It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some >kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >You believe LOTS of unreal things. > >> >>>but it's irrelevant. >> >> >> >> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer > >What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of >moral justification for killing them. > >> > >> >No fantasy. >> > >> >>>The talking pig is >> >>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a >human/animal >> >>>moral relationship. >> >> >> >> No, it's much more than that. >> > >> >Nope, it's a rhetorical device. >> > >> >> The author is very obviously trying to >> >> persuade people to feel that > >that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing >them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does a >good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that you >can't even begin to address it, Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about a talking pig. The Talking Pig is really a collection of at least 34 fantasies presented to give the false impression that pigs are capable of things which they are not. In order for the fantasies to be any more than childish fantasies, it would be required that: 1. pigs are capable of replying to humans 2. pigs are aware of revered moralists 3. pigs understand the concept of pleading 4. pigs contemplate time 5. pigs contemplate their own existence 6. pigs contemplate the future 7. pigs understand their bodies will be butchered and prepared in specific ways 8. pigs understand and are capable of disputing verbally with humans 9. pigs consider that they may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics" 10. pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect 11. pigs know humans deliberately raise them 12. pigs are aware of death 13. pigs know they can be killed 14. pigs know humans deliberately kill them 15. pigs know humans eat their dead bodies 16. pigs consider what motivates human thinking 17. pigs are aware of moral reasoning 18. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a moral reason" for devouring them 19. pigs consider how they come into existence 20. pigs accurately understand what humans do and do not consider 21. pigs contemplate their own fate 22. pigs would rather they had never been born 23. pigs know humans eat meat 24. pigs know they are "pork" 25. pigs have a "so be it" attitude about humans killing them for food 26. pigs are able to understand human speach 27. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry" 28. pigs understand the situation they are in 29. pigs understand how the situation they are in relates to humans 30. pigs are aware of filth 31. pigs feel they are forced to live in filth 32. pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them 33. pigs feel that what and or how they are fed is filthy 34. pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies after their death |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
wrote: >> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder" >> >>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and >best-known >> >>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals >> >>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows: >Killing >> >>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed >but >> >>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its >existence >> >>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for >every >> >>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought >into >> >>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy >its >> >>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see >> >>>> Nozick 38). > >The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared >to never having existed. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral >right to >> >>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid >justification for >> >>>killing it. >> >> >> >> No justification is needed. > >You CLEARLY seem to feel one is needed. > >> >> Regardless of that, billions of animals are >> >> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those >same >> >> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to >eat. >> > >> >That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to >point it >> >out. >> >> It is consideration for animals which > >It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary "benefit" >they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living, >compared with never living at all. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic >> >>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including >humans) are >> >>>"brought into being". >> >> >> >> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it >does ANY >> >> other set of circumstances... >> > >> >There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where >we >> >factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.." >> >> That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including >humans, pets, >> etc... > >Gobbledygook. > >> >> >when assessing the morality of killing them. >> >> That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you >still >> want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else. > >Food animals are not in a "unique" situation when considering the >morality of whether or not they are born to begin with. Life is not a >benefit to them. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >NONE, ZERO. >> > >> >>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals >for food >> >>>is needed, >> >> >> >> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you >"ARAs" >> >> want >> >> people to consider. >> > >> >It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one. >> > >> >>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal >> >>>Rights" basis in their thinking, >> >> >> >> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having >any life >> >> at all. >> > >> >So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights" >position >> >that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think >their >> >getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights >position? >> >> I don't believe any animals have rights. > >You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have >a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they >want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is >absurd for you to claim you don't believe this. > >> >>>albeit turned rather upside-down. >> >>> >> >>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking >> >>>> pig "logic > >It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want >to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they >have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock >for >> >some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry, >and you >> >don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse. > >Exactly right. It IS sophistry, and he obviously isn't intelligent >enough to appreciate it. > >> >>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make >> >>>> The Logic of the > >Causing pigs to be born is not conferring any benefit upon them. If >one wants to eat pork, and if one feels a need to justify killing pigs >to obtain pork - and you CLEARLY feel the need for such justification - >it is absurd to think causing the pigs to "benefit" from having lived >is a suitable justification. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >> >>> >> >>>They are capable of some of them, >> >> >> >> Not even one of them. >> > >> >I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth, >> >> I don't believe that. > >It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in >ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity. > >> >> >by nature they are >> >very clean animals. >> >> I don't believe that either. > >It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some >kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all. · When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative. >You believe LOTS of unreal things. > >> >>>but it's irrelevant. >> >> >> >> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer > >What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of >moral justification for killing them. > >> > >> >No fantasy. >> > >> >>>The talking pig is >> >>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a >human/animal >> >>>moral relationship. >> >> >> >> No, it's much more than that. >> > >> >Nope, it's a rhetorical device. >> > >> >> The author is very obviously trying to >> >> persuade people to feel that > >that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing >them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does a >good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that you >can't even begin to address it, Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about a talking pig. The Talking Pig is really a collection of at least 34 fantasies presented to give the false impression that pigs are capable of things which they are not. In order for the fantasies to be any more than childish fantasies, it would be required that: 1. pigs are capable of replying to humans 2. pigs are aware of revered moralists 3. pigs understand the concept of pleading 4. pigs contemplate time 5. pigs contemplate their own existence 6. pigs contemplate the future 7. pigs understand their bodies will be butchered and prepared in specific ways 8. pigs understand and are capable of disputing verbally with humans 9. pigs consider that they may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics" 10. pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect 11. pigs know humans deliberately raise them 12. pigs are aware of death 13. pigs know they can be killed 14. pigs know humans deliberately kill them 15. pigs know humans eat their dead bodies 16. pigs consider what motivates human thinking 17. pigs are aware of moral reasoning 18. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a moral reason" for devouring them 19. pigs consider how they come into existence 20. pigs accurately understand what humans do and do not consider 21. pigs contemplate their own fate 22. pigs would rather they had never been born 23. pigs know humans eat meat 24. pigs know they are "pork" 25. pigs have a "so be it" attitude about humans killing them for food 26. pigs are able to understand human speach 27. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry" 28. pigs understand the situation they are in 29. pigs understand how the situation they are in relates to humans 30. pigs are aware of filth 31. pigs feel they are forced to live in filth 32. pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them 33. pigs feel that what and or how they are fed is filthy 34. pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies after their death |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:58:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
wrote: >> On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >> >> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder" >>>>>>>>or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and >>> >>>best-known >>> >>>>>>>>justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals >>>>>>>>for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows: >>> >>>Killing >>> >>>>>>>>an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed >>> >>>but >>> >>>>>>>>for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its >>> >>>existence >>> >>>>>>>>for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for >>> >>>every >>> >>>>>>>>animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought >>> >>>into >>> >>>>>>>>being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy >>> >>>its >>> >>>>>>>>existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see >>>>>>>>Nozick 38). >>> >>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared >>>to never having existed. >> >> >> · When "ARAs" Gonad say things like: No animals >> benefit from farming > >No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when >you say they do is that coming into existence is >"better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong. > > >>>> >>>> It is consideration for animals which >>> >>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary "benefit" >>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living, >>>compared with never living at all. >> >> >> · When "ARAs" say things like: No animals >> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe >> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement > >They don't. They are not better off for having >existed, versus never having existed. Explain how you know that Gonad. >>>> I don't believe any animals have rights. >>> >>>You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have >>>a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they >>>want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is >>>absurd for you to claim you don't believe this. >>> >>> >>>>>>>albeit turned rather upside-down. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking >>>>>>>>pig "logic >>> >>>It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want >>>to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they >>>have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live. >> > >>>>>I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth, >>>> >>>> I don't believe that. >>> >>>It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in >>>ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity. >>> >>> >>>>>by nature they are >>>>>very clean animals. >>>> >>>> I don't believe that either. >>> >>>It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some >>>kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all. >>> >>>You believe LOTS of unreal things. >>> >>> >>>>>>>but it's irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer >>> >>>What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of >>>moral justification for killing them. >>> >>> > >>>>>> No, it's much more than that. >>>>> >>>>>Nope, it's a rhetorical device. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to >>>>>>persuade people to feel that >>> >>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing >>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does a >>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that you >>>can't even begin to address it, >> >> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of > >The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a >moral justification for killing them. The author created a fantasy about a talking pig who knows many things that no pig could ever know, to encourage people to have the false impression that pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will be killed. Meanwhile here in reality billions of animals continue to experience life only because humans raise them to eat, and many of them have decent lives. Too bad for those of you who hate it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:58:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > wrote: > >> > >>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared > >>>to never having existed. > >> > >> > >> =B7 When "ARAs" say things like: No animals > >> benefit from farming > > > >No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when > >you say they do is that coming into existence is > >"better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong. > > > > > >>>> > >>>> It is consideration for animals which > >>> > >>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary "benefit" > >>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living, > >>>compared with never living at all. > >> > >> > >> When "ARAs" say things like: No animals > >> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe > >> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement > > > >They don't. They are not better off for having > >existed, versus never having existed. > > Explain how you know that No. You have read the explanation dozens of times. You know that it is compelling, and right. > >>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to > >>>>>>persuade people to feel that > >>> > >>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing > >>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does a > >>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that you > >>>can't even begin to address it, > >> > >> > >> Real pigs are not capable of any of > > > >The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a > >moral justification for killing them. > > The author created a The author explained, lucidly and compellingly, that causing pigs to live is not doing any favor to the pigs. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/ Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/ Roger Whitaker/****tard/Apoo/Ted / Jay /Rudy Canoza... aka the Gonad wrote: wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:58:05 GMT, the Gonad wrote: >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value >compared >> >>>to never having existed. >> >> >> >> >> >> · When "ARAs" say things like: No animals >> >> benefit from farming >> > >> >No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when >> >you say they do is that coming into existence is >> >"better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong. >> > >> > >> >>>> >> >>>> It is consideration for animals which >> >>> >> >>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary >"benefit" >> >>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living, >> >>>compared with never living at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> When "ARAs" say things like: No animals >> >> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe >> >> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement >> > >> >They don't. They are not better off for having >> >existed, versus never having existed. >> >> Explain how you know that > >No. You have read the explanation dozens of times. You know that it >is compelling, and right. LOL!!! I mean: no as a matter of fact I've never seen it Gonad. Please present it so I can learn from your great wisdom, or at least consider that you may not be lying about this as you lie about everything else. Please. Gonad. Present it now. >> >>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to >> >>>>>>persuade people to feel that >> >>> >> >>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing >> >>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does >a >> >>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that >you >> >>>can't even begin to address it, >> >> >> >> >> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of >> > >> >The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a >> >moral justification for killing them. >> >> The author created a > >The author explained, lucidly and compellingly, that causing pigs to >live is not doing any favor to the pigs. Oh? I missed that part Gonad, unless you're referring to that thing about filth. Show me: " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" exactly where does the author explain that causing pigs to live is not doing any favor to the pigs? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote
> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; > and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered > moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a > pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of > ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first determined > to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral > reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own > predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition > of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork > I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy > sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily > housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job of illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote
> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; > and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered > moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a > pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of > ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first determined > to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral > reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own > predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition > of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork > I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy > sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily > housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job of illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote: > > wrote: > >> > >> >>>> It is consideration for animals which > >> >>> > >> >>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary "benefit" > >> >>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living, > >> >>>compared with never living at all. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> When "ARAs" say things like: No animals > >> >> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe > >> >> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement > >> > > >> >They don't. They are not better off for having > >> >existed, versus never having existed. > >> > >> Explain how you know that > > > >No. You have read the explanation dozens of times. You know that it > >is compelling, and right. > > LOL!!! Why do you find it funny that you pretend not to know what has been written in response to your ravings? It is a logical absurdity to believe that coming into existence is a "benefit" compared to never existing. > >> >>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to > >> >>>>>>persuade people to feel that > >> >>> > >> >>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing > >> >>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does > >a > >> >>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that > >you > >> >>>can't even begin to address it, > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of > >> > > >> >The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a > >> >moral justification for killing them. > >> > >> The author created a > > > >The author explained, lucidly and compellingly, that causing pigs to > >live is not doing any favor to the pigs. > > Oh? I missed that part You always miss the logic. > > " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig You didn't "miss" that part - that's what YOU believe. You believe that you are being "benign" to animals, because you "provided them life". > > exactly where does the author explain that causing pigs to live is not > doing any favor to the pigs? When he says that it is not for the pig's sake, but for the sake of the philosopher, that the pig was caused to be born. Right there. That's where he explains it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote > >> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; >> and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered >> moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a >> pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of >> ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first >determined >> to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral >> reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own >> predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on >condition >> of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for >pork >> I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy >> sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig >is filthily >> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" > >Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job of >illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to live, and hopes to have some life beyond this one. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > wrote > > > >> [(il)logic of the larder] > > > >Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job of > >illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". > > Later on No, there is no "later on". Salt makes his excellent points - that the pig was bred for the philsopher's benefit, not the pig's; - that life per se is not a benefit to the pig and then he moves on. There is no "later on" to Salt's essay. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > wrote >> >>> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; >>> and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered >>> moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a >>> pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of >>> ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first >>determined >>> to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a >>> moral >>> reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own >>> predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on >>condition >>> of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for >>pork >>> I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy >>> sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the >>> Pig >>is filthily >>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >> >>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job of >>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". > > Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to live, > and hopes to have some life beyond this one. You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That wasn't so hard was it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:48:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:35:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> > wrote >>> >>>> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; >>>> and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered >>>> moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a >>>> pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of >>>> ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first >>>determined >>>> to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a >>>> moral >>>> reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own >>>> predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on >>>condition >>>> of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for >>>pork >>>> I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy >>>> sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the >>>> Pig >>>is filthily >>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >>> >>>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job of >>>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". >> >> Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to live, >> and hopes to have some life beyond this one. > >You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That wasn't >so hard was it? Nope. And now we know pigs are thankful that humans raise them for food too. Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Jan 2005 11:37:44 -0800, the Gonad wrote:
wrote: >> the Gonad wrote: >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>> It is consideration for animals which >> >> >>> >> >> >>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary >"benefit" >> >> >>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from >living, >> >> >>>compared with never living at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> When "ARAs" say things like: No animals >> >> >> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe >> >> >> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement >> >> > >> >> >They don't. They are not better off for having >> >> >existed, versus never having existed. >> >> >> >> Explain how you know that >> > >> >No. You have read the explanation dozens of times. You know that >it >> >is compelling, and right. >> >> LOL!!! > >Why do you find it funny that you pretend not to know what has been >written in response to your ravings? > >It is a logical absurdity to believe that coming into existence is a >"benefit" compared to never existing. How do you know what never existing is like Mr Gonad? >> >> >>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to >> >> >>>>>>persuade people to feel that >> >> >>> >> >> >>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for >killing >> >> >>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He >does >> >a >> >> >>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it >that >> >you >> >> >>>can't even begin to address it, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of >> >> > >> >> >The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a >> >> >moral justification for killing them. >> >> >> >> The author created a >> > >> >The author explained, lucidly and compellingly, that causing pigs to >> >live is not doing any favor to the pigs. >> >> Oh? I missed that part > >You always miss the logic. > >> >> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the >Pig > >You didn't "miss" that part - that's what YOU believe. You believe >that you are being "benign" to animals, because you "provided them >life". > >> >> exactly where does the author explain that causing pigs to live is >not >> doing any favor to the pigs? > >When he says that it is not for the pig's sake, but for the sake of the >philosopher, that the pig was caused to be born. Right there. That's >where he explains it. It doesn't say the pigs don't benefit too, it just says the reason they are born is to benefit humans. Some of them do benefit too, and some of them don't. It's really hard to imagine anyone being too ignorant to understand something that's so obviously true. Even without ever being on a pig farm anyone should be able to understand that some pigs have decent lives and that some don't, the same as with everything else including humans. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Jan 2005 11:37:44 -0800, the Gonad wrote:
wrote: >> the Gonad wrote: >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>> It is consideration for animals which >> >> >>> >> >> >>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary >"benefit" >> >> >>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from >living, >> >> >>>compared with never living at all. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> When "ARAs" say things like: No animals >> >> >> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe >> >> >> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement >> >> > >> >> >They don't. They are not better off for having >> >> >existed, versus never having existed. >> >> >> >> Explain how you know that >> > >> >No. You have read the explanation dozens of times. You know that >it >> >is compelling, and right. >> >> LOL!!! > >Why do you find it funny that you pretend not to know what has been >written in response to your ravings? > >It is a logical absurdity to believe that coming into existence is a >"benefit" compared to never existing. How do you know what never existing is like Mr Gonad? >> >> >>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to >> >> >>>>>>persuade people to feel that >> >> >>> >> >> >>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for >killing >> >> >>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He >does >> >a >> >> >>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it >that >> >you >> >> >>>can't even begin to address it, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of >> >> > >> >> >The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a >> >> >moral justification for killing them. >> >> >> >> The author created a >> > >> >The author explained, lucidly and compellingly, that causing pigs to >> >live is not doing any favor to the pigs. >> >> Oh? I missed that part > >You always miss the logic. > >> >> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the >Pig > >You didn't "miss" that part - that's what YOU believe. You believe >that you are being "benign" to animals, because you "provided them >life". > >> >> exactly where does the author explain that causing pigs to live is >not >> doing any favor to the pigs? > >When he says that it is not for the pig's sake, but for the sake of the >philosopher, that the pig was caused to be born. Right there. That's >where he explains it. It doesn't say the pigs don't benefit too, it just says the reason they are born is to benefit humans. Some of them do benefit too, and some of them don't. It's really hard to imagine anyone being too ignorant to understand something that's so obviously true. Even without ever being on a pig farm anyone should be able to understand that some pigs have decent lives and that some don't, the same as with everything else including humans. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:48:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> Pig >>>>is filthily >>>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >>>> >>>>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job >>>>of >>>>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". >>> >>> Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to live, >>> and hopes to have some life beyond this one. >> >>You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That wasn't >>so hard was it? > > Nope. And now we know pigs are thankful that humans raise > them for food too. Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. Your sentence, in extending the literary device used by Salt, got across your ideas that pigs enjoy and "benefit from" life, and that they may even go to piggy heaven. You're a poet and don't even know it! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:00:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:48:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>> Pig >>>>>is filthily >>>>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >>>>> >>>>>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job >>>>>of >>>>>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". >>>> >>>> Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to live, >>>> and hopes to have some life beyond this one. >>> >>>You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That wasn't >>>so hard was it? >> >> Nope. And now we know pigs are thankful that humans raise >> them for food too. Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. > >Your sentence, in extending the literary device used by Salt, got across >your ideas that pigs enjoy and "benefit from" life, That one did. Some do and some don't. >and that they may even >go to piggy heaven. Maybe: Genesis 9:5 - "I will demand an accounting from every animal." >You're a poet and don't even know it! Actually Dutch, before I learned what a bunch of assholes I'm dealing with here I did make use of the supposed literary device, and posted my own fantasy about a typing cow as a sort of joke but still to convey a message. If the talking pig had any influence on you, then maybe the typing cow can help you out a bit too. Here's a repost: From: (David) Subject: mmm.....mmmmmo........mmmmoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Date: 1999/02/25 Message-ID: >#1/1 Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian OK all you veggie heads, a good friend of mine would like to say a few things to you folks, so here she is: hi my names gladys an im a 6 years old holstein. the first thing i want to say is my farmer is a nice man who feeds me good but he could do better cause im 6 and still have never got to eat enough to get foundered..oh well. he feeds me good though and only kicks me in the ass when its draggin so i cant complain about that. an the way he cleans my nipples..oooh....it makes me feel so.....never mind. a other thing i want to tell you is ive had 3 children 2 sons and a daughter and i loved the boys but they got took away too soon and i cried for a while but i loved them while they were with me. i dont know where the boys went but my little girl is workin with me an had a son of her own and we eat lunch together and that is nice. i wouldnt trade the kids for anything ya know what i mean. so now i want say my job is cool an i don want no office job cause this typin is gettin me wore out, so give us cows a break an let us keep workin. hav a glassa milk or a icecream or somethin....eat some cottage cheese wouldya!! an if no one eats dairy food we will all die an then there wont be no more milk cows is that what you want?? and dont listen to then tv cows sayin eat more chicken cause they sold out for the money! cows are loyal to their own an its a low cow sure that tries to help chickens! besides chicken is wuss food so eat a steak or burger instead. beef cows wanta live too so help em out.. their retirement plan sux but the job itsef is awesom! furget chicken!! thats about it cept i eat plants too an theres nothin rong with it but dont try to put us outa work or make cows extinct cause were nice people too an aint done nothin to hurt non of yoy guys! jus you eat yor plants an let the other peoples eat ther beef an ther dairy an then so we can get ta have our lifes too...please!!! Thank you Gladys--you did a great job (we'll discuss the carpet later). Hopefully they'll listen to you; they sure don't listen to me... You are a nice lady for doing this--and you've got a cute daughter too ;-) So there you have it, straight from the cows mouth! You won't listen to me, but we're hoping you'll listen to the cows. At least you could *think* about what she said. Cows don't lie! Of course some of you will want to bring in your own cows with an opposing view point, but be warned that it isn't easy...the farmers don't like it, cows have no respect for your living room, and they are murder on the keyboard. All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! David |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:00:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:48:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>>> Pig >>>>>is filthily >>>>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >>>>> >>>>>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job >>>>>of >>>>>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". >>>> >>>> Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to live, >>>> and hopes to have some life beyond this one. >>> >>>You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That wasn't >>>so hard was it? >> >> Nope. And now we know pigs are thankful that humans raise >> them for food too. Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. > >Your sentence, in extending the literary device used by Salt, got across >your ideas that pigs enjoy and "benefit from" life, That one did. Some do and some don't. >and that they may even >go to piggy heaven. Maybe: Genesis 9:5 - "I will demand an accounting from every animal." >You're a poet and don't even know it! Actually Dutch, before I learned what a bunch of assholes I'm dealing with here I did make use of the supposed literary device, and posted my own fantasy about a typing cow as a sort of joke but still to convey a message. If the talking pig had any influence on you, then maybe the typing cow can help you out a bit too. Here's a repost: From: (David) Subject: mmm.....mmmmmo........mmmmoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Date: 1999/02/25 Message-ID: >#1/1 Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian OK all you veggie heads, a good friend of mine would like to say a few things to you folks, so here she is: hi my names gladys an im a 6 years old holstein. the first thing i want to say is my farmer is a nice man who feeds me good but he could do better cause im 6 and still have never got to eat enough to get foundered..oh well. he feeds me good though and only kicks me in the ass when its draggin so i cant complain about that. an the way he cleans my nipples..oooh....it makes me feel so.....never mind. a other thing i want to tell you is ive had 3 children 2 sons and a daughter and i loved the boys but they got took away too soon and i cried for a while but i loved them while they were with me. i dont know where the boys went but my little girl is workin with me an had a son of her own and we eat lunch together and that is nice. i wouldnt trade the kids for anything ya know what i mean. so now i want say my job is cool an i don want no office job cause this typin is gettin me wore out, so give us cows a break an let us keep workin. hav a glassa milk or a icecream or somethin....eat some cottage cheese wouldya!! an if no one eats dairy food we will all die an then there wont be no more milk cows is that what you want?? and dont listen to then tv cows sayin eat more chicken cause they sold out for the money! cows are loyal to their own an its a low cow sure that tries to help chickens! besides chicken is wuss food so eat a steak or burger instead. beef cows wanta live too so help em out.. their retirement plan sux but the job itsef is awesom! furget chicken!! thats about it cept i eat plants too an theres nothin rong with it but dont try to put us outa work or make cows extinct cause were nice people too an aint done nothin to hurt non of yoy guys! jus you eat yor plants an let the other peoples eat ther beef an ther dairy an then so we can get ta have our lifes too...please!!! Thank you Gladys--you did a great job (we'll discuss the carpet later). Hopefully they'll listen to you; they sure don't listen to me... You are a nice lady for doing this--and you've got a cute daughter too ;-) So there you have it, straight from the cows mouth! You won't listen to me, but we're hoping you'll listen to the cows. At least you could *think* about what she said. Cows don't lie! Of course some of you will want to bring in your own cows with an opposing view point, but be warned that it isn't easy...the farmers don't like it, cows have no respect for your living room, and they are murder on the keyboard. All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! David |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:00:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > wrote >>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:48:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>>>> Pig >>>>>>is filthily >>>>>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >>>>>> >>>>>>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job >>>>>>of >>>>>>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". >>>>> >>>>> Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to >>>>> live, >>>>> and hopes to have some life beyond this one. >>>> >>>>You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That >>>>wasn't >>>>so hard was it? >>> >>> Nope. And now we know pigs are thankful that humans raise >>> them for food too. Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. >> >>Your sentence, in extending the literary device used by Salt, got across >>your ideas that pigs enjoy and "benefit from" life, > > That one did. Some do and some don't. > >>and that they may even >>go to piggy heaven. > > Maybe: > > Genesis 9:5 - "I will demand an accounting from every animal." > >>You're a poet and don't even know it! > > Actually Dutch, before I learned what a bunch of assholes I'm > dealing with here I did make use of the supposed literary device, > and posted my own fantasy about a typing cow as a sort of joke > but still to convey a message. If the talking pig had any influence > on you, then maybe the typing cow can help you out a bit too. > Here's a repost: > > From: (David) > Subject: mmm.....mmmmmo........mmmmoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! > Date: 1999/02/25 > Message-ID: >#1/1 > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian > > > OK all you veggie heads, a good friend of mine would like to say a few > things to you folks, so here she is: > > > hi my names gladys an im a 6 years old holstein. the first thing i want to > say is my farmer is a nice man who feeds me good but he could do better > cause im 6 and still have never got to eat enough to get foundered..oh > well. > he feeds me good though and only kicks me in the ass when its draggin so i > cant complain about that. an the way he cleans my nipples..oooh....it > makes > me feel so.....never mind. > > a other thing i want to tell you is ive had 3 children 2 sons and a > daughter > and i loved the boys but they got took away too soon and i cried for a > while > but i loved them while they were with me. i dont know where the boys went > but my little girl is workin with me an had a son of her own and we eat > lunch > together and that is nice. i wouldnt trade the kids for anything ya know > what > i mean. > > so now i want say my job is cool an i don want no office job cause this > typin > is gettin me wore out, so give us cows a break an let us keep workin. hav > a > glassa milk or a icecream or somethin....eat some cottage cheese wouldya!! > an if no one eats dairy food we will all die an then there wont be no more > milk > cows is that what you want?? and dont listen to then tv cows sayin eat > more > chicken cause they sold out for the money! cows are loyal to their own an > its a low cow sure that tries to help chickens! besides chicken is wuss > food > so eat a steak or burger instead. beef cows wanta live too so help em > out.. > their retirement plan sux but the job itsef is awesom! furget chicken!! > > thats about it cept i eat plants too an theres nothin rong with it but > dont > try to put us outa work or make cows extinct cause were nice people too an > aint done nothin to hurt non of yoy guys! jus you eat yor plants an let > the > other peoples eat ther beef an ther dairy an then so we can get ta have > our > lifes too...please!!! > > > Thank you Gladys--you did a great job (we'll discuss the carpet later). > Hopefully they'll listen to you; they sure don't listen to me... You are a > nice lady for doing this--and you've got a cute daughter too ;-) > > So there you have it, straight from the cows mouth! You won't listen to > me, but we're hoping you'll listen to the cows. At least you could *think* > about what she said. Cows don't lie! > Of course some of you will want to bring in your own cows with an > opposing view point, but be warned that it isn't easy...the farmers don't > like it, cows have no respect for your living room, and they are murder on > the keyboard. > > All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those things? So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a talking pig? You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the conscience of the meat consumer, never the pig itself. What a lying asshole. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:00:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > wrote >>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:48:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>>>>> Pig >>>>>>is filthily >>>>>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >>>>>> >>>>>>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job >>>>>>of >>>>>>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". >>>>> >>>>> Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to >>>>> live, >>>>> and hopes to have some life beyond this one. >>>> >>>>You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That >>>>wasn't >>>>so hard was it? >>> >>> Nope. And now we know pigs are thankful that humans raise >>> them for food too. Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. >> >>Your sentence, in extending the literary device used by Salt, got across >>your ideas that pigs enjoy and "benefit from" life, > > That one did. Some do and some don't. > >>and that they may even >>go to piggy heaven. > > Maybe: > > Genesis 9:5 - "I will demand an accounting from every animal." > >>You're a poet and don't even know it! > > Actually Dutch, before I learned what a bunch of assholes I'm > dealing with here I did make use of the supposed literary device, > and posted my own fantasy about a typing cow as a sort of joke > but still to convey a message. If the talking pig had any influence > on you, then maybe the typing cow can help you out a bit too. > Here's a repost: > > From: (David) > Subject: mmm.....mmmmmo........mmmmoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! > Date: 1999/02/25 > Message-ID: >#1/1 > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian > > > OK all you veggie heads, a good friend of mine would like to say a few > things to you folks, so here she is: > > > hi my names gladys an im a 6 years old holstein. the first thing i want to > say is my farmer is a nice man who feeds me good but he could do better > cause im 6 and still have never got to eat enough to get foundered..oh > well. > he feeds me good though and only kicks me in the ass when its draggin so i > cant complain about that. an the way he cleans my nipples..oooh....it > makes > me feel so.....never mind. > > a other thing i want to tell you is ive had 3 children 2 sons and a > daughter > and i loved the boys but they got took away too soon and i cried for a > while > but i loved them while they were with me. i dont know where the boys went > but my little girl is workin with me an had a son of her own and we eat > lunch > together and that is nice. i wouldnt trade the kids for anything ya know > what > i mean. > > so now i want say my job is cool an i don want no office job cause this > typin > is gettin me wore out, so give us cows a break an let us keep workin. hav > a > glassa milk or a icecream or somethin....eat some cottage cheese wouldya!! > an if no one eats dairy food we will all die an then there wont be no more > milk > cows is that what you want?? and dont listen to then tv cows sayin eat > more > chicken cause they sold out for the money! cows are loyal to their own an > its a low cow sure that tries to help chickens! besides chicken is wuss > food > so eat a steak or burger instead. beef cows wanta live too so help em > out.. > their retirement plan sux but the job itsef is awesom! furget chicken!! > > thats about it cept i eat plants too an theres nothin rong with it but > dont > try to put us outa work or make cows extinct cause were nice people too an > aint done nothin to hurt non of yoy guys! jus you eat yor plants an let > the > other peoples eat ther beef an ther dairy an then so we can get ta have > our > lifes too...please!!! > > > Thank you Gladys--you did a great job (we'll discuss the carpet later). > Hopefully they'll listen to you; they sure don't listen to me... You are a > nice lady for doing this--and you've got a cute daughter too ;-) > > So there you have it, straight from the cows mouth! You won't listen to > me, but we're hoping you'll listen to the cows. At least you could *think* > about what she said. Cows don't lie! > Of course some of you will want to bring in your own cows with an > opposing view point, but be warned that it isn't easy...the farmers don't > like it, cows have no respect for your living room, and they are murder on > the keyboard. > > All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those things? So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a talking pig? You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the conscience of the meat consumer, never the pig itself. What a lying asshole. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
None of your ranting, even if true, supports your idiotic claim that
life, in and of itself, is a benefit. There is a huge difference between "some farm animals have decent lives" and "life is a benefit", why don't you understand this? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:00:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:00:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> > wrote >>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:48:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> Pig >>>>>>>is filthily >>>>>>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". >>>>>> >>>>>> Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to >>>>>> live, >>>>>> and hopes to have some life beyond this one. >>>>> >>>>>You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That >>>>>wasn't >>>>>so hard was it? >>>> >>>> Nope. And now we know pigs are thankful that humans raise >>>> them for food too. Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. >>> >>>Your sentence, in extending the literary device used by Salt, got across >>>your ideas that pigs enjoy and "benefit from" life, >> >> That one did. Some do and some don't. >> >>>and that they may even >>>go to piggy heaven. >> >> Maybe: >> >> Genesis 9:5 - "I will demand an accounting from every animal." >> >>>You're a poet and don't even know it! >> >> Actually Dutch, before I learned what a bunch of assholes I'm >> dealing with here I did make use of the supposed literary device, >> and posted my own fantasy about a typing cow as a sort of joke >> but still to convey a message. If the talking pig had any influence >> on you, then maybe the typing cow can help you out a bit too. >> Here's a repost: >> >> From: (David) >> Subject: mmm.....mmmmmo........mmmmoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! >> Date: 1999/02/25 >> Message-ID: >#1/1 >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian >> >> >> OK all you veggie heads, a good friend of mine would like to say a few >> things to you folks, so here she is: >> >> >> hi my names gladys an im a 6 years old holstein. the first thing i want to >> say is my farmer is a nice man who feeds me good but he could do better >> cause im 6 and still have never got to eat enough to get foundered..oh >> well. >> he feeds me good though and only kicks me in the ass when its draggin so i >> cant complain about that. an the way he cleans my nipples..oooh....it >> makes >> me feel so.....never mind. >> >> a other thing i want to tell you is ive had 3 children 2 sons and a >> daughter >> and i loved the boys but they got took away too soon and i cried for a >> while >> but i loved them while they were with me. i dont know where the boys went >> but my little girl is workin with me an had a son of her own and we eat >> lunch >> together and that is nice. i wouldnt trade the kids for anything ya know >> what >> i mean. >> >> so now i want say my job is cool an i don want no office job cause this >> typin >> is gettin me wore out, so give us cows a break an let us keep workin. hav >> a >> glassa milk or a icecream or somethin....eat some cottage cheese wouldya!! >> an if no one eats dairy food we will all die an then there wont be no more >> milk >> cows is that what you want?? and dont listen to then tv cows sayin eat >> more >> chicken cause they sold out for the money! cows are loyal to their own an >> its a low cow sure that tries to help chickens! besides chicken is wuss >> food >> so eat a steak or burger instead. beef cows wanta live too so help em >> out.. >> their retirement plan sux but the job itsef is awesom! furget chicken!! >> >> thats about it cept i eat plants too an theres nothin rong with it but >> dont >> try to put us outa work or make cows extinct cause were nice people too an >> aint done nothin to hurt non of yoy guys! jus you eat yor plants an let >> the >> other peoples eat ther beef an ther dairy an then so we can get ta have >> our >> lifes too...please!!! >> >> >> Thank you Gladys--you did a great job (we'll discuss the carpet later). >> Hopefully they'll listen to you; they sure don't listen to me... You are a >> nice lady for doing this--and you've got a cute daughter too ;-) >> >> So there you have it, straight from the cows mouth! You won't listen to >> me, but we're hoping you'll listen to the cows. At least you could *think* >> about what she said. Cows don't lie! >> Of course some of you will want to bring in your own cows with an >> opposing view point, but be warned that it isn't easy...the farmers don't >> like it, cows have no respect for your living room, and they are murder on >> the keyboard. >> >> All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! > >Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those >things? > >So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a talking >pig? That's what it is, like my fantasy about a typing cow. >You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the >conscience of the meat consumer, No. It was intended to create the impression that pigs know they will be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge. >never the pig itself. > >What a lying asshole. They are both fantasies. The difference between you and I is that I know and admit it, but you either don't know it or won't admit it. If there is any value in Salt's fantasy, then there is just as much value in my fantasy. More in mine actually, since a greater percentage of things in my fantasy are things that the animals are aware of. There is practically nothing in Salt's fantasy that pigs could ever learn about. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:00:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:00:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> > wrote >>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:48:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> Pig >>>>>>>is filthily >>>>>>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well done! Thanks for posting that again, it does such a beautiful job >>>>>>>of >>>>>>>illustrating the sophistry of "The Logic of the Larder". >>>>>> >>>>>> Later on the pig sings "Swing Low", is thankful that it got to >>>>>> live, >>>>>> and hopes to have some life beyond this one. >>>>> >>>>>You just used the same literary device to express three ideas. That >>>>>wasn't >>>>>so hard was it? >>>> >>>> Nope. And now we know pigs are thankful that humans raise >>>> them for food too. Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out. >>> >>>Your sentence, in extending the literary device used by Salt, got across >>>your ideas that pigs enjoy and "benefit from" life, >> >> That one did. Some do and some don't. >> >>>and that they may even >>>go to piggy heaven. >> >> Maybe: >> >> Genesis 9:5 - "I will demand an accounting from every animal." >> >>>You're a poet and don't even know it! >> >> Actually Dutch, before I learned what a bunch of assholes I'm >> dealing with here I did make use of the supposed literary device, >> and posted my own fantasy about a typing cow as a sort of joke >> but still to convey a message. If the talking pig had any influence >> on you, then maybe the typing cow can help you out a bit too. >> Here's a repost: >> >> From: (David) >> Subject: mmm.....mmmmmo........mmmmoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! >> Date: 1999/02/25 >> Message-ID: >#1/1 >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian >> >> >> OK all you veggie heads, a good friend of mine would like to say a few >> things to you folks, so here she is: >> >> >> hi my names gladys an im a 6 years old holstein. the first thing i want to >> say is my farmer is a nice man who feeds me good but he could do better >> cause im 6 and still have never got to eat enough to get foundered..oh >> well. >> he feeds me good though and only kicks me in the ass when its draggin so i >> cant complain about that. an the way he cleans my nipples..oooh....it >> makes >> me feel so.....never mind. >> >> a other thing i want to tell you is ive had 3 children 2 sons and a >> daughter >> and i loved the boys but they got took away too soon and i cried for a >> while >> but i loved them while they were with me. i dont know where the boys went >> but my little girl is workin with me an had a son of her own and we eat >> lunch >> together and that is nice. i wouldnt trade the kids for anything ya know >> what >> i mean. >> >> so now i want say my job is cool an i don want no office job cause this >> typin >> is gettin me wore out, so give us cows a break an let us keep workin. hav >> a >> glassa milk or a icecream or somethin....eat some cottage cheese wouldya!! >> an if no one eats dairy food we will all die an then there wont be no more >> milk >> cows is that what you want?? and dont listen to then tv cows sayin eat >> more >> chicken cause they sold out for the money! cows are loyal to their own an >> its a low cow sure that tries to help chickens! besides chicken is wuss >> food >> so eat a steak or burger instead. beef cows wanta live too so help em >> out.. >> their retirement plan sux but the job itsef is awesom! furget chicken!! >> >> thats about it cept i eat plants too an theres nothin rong with it but >> dont >> try to put us outa work or make cows extinct cause were nice people too an >> aint done nothin to hurt non of yoy guys! jus you eat yor plants an let >> the >> other peoples eat ther beef an ther dairy an then so we can get ta have >> our >> lifes too...please!!! >> >> >> Thank you Gladys--you did a great job (we'll discuss the carpet later). >> Hopefully they'll listen to you; they sure don't listen to me... You are a >> nice lady for doing this--and you've got a cute daughter too ;-) >> >> So there you have it, straight from the cows mouth! You won't listen to >> me, but we're hoping you'll listen to the cows. At least you could *think* >> about what she said. Cows don't lie! >> Of course some of you will want to bring in your own cows with an >> opposing view point, but be warned that it isn't easy...the farmers don't >> like it, cows have no respect for your living room, and they are murder on >> the keyboard. >> >> All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! > >Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those >things? > >So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a talking >pig? That's what it is, like my fantasy about a typing cow. >You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the >conscience of the meat consumer, No. It was intended to create the impression that pigs know they will be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge. >never the pig itself. > >What a lying asshole. They are both fantasies. The difference between you and I is that I know and admit it, but you either don't know it or won't admit it. If there is any value in Salt's fantasy, then there is just as much value in my fantasy. More in mine actually, since a greater percentage of things in my fantasy are things that the animals are aware of. There is practically nothing in Salt's fantasy that pigs could ever learn about. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote
>>> All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! >> >>Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those >>things? >> >>So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a >>talking >>pig? > > That's what it is, like my fantasy about a typing cow. Exactly, so your objections have been bullshit, which says you have no REAL objections. >>You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the >>conscience of the meat consumer, > > No. It was intended to create the impression that pigs know they will > be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge. BULLSHIT! It conveys how the author believes we should think about livestock. >>never the pig itself. >> >>What a lying asshole. > > They are both fantasies. They are rhetorical devices. They don't imply any powers in pigs or cows. > The difference between you and I is that > I know and admit it, but you either don't know it or won't admit it. If > there is any value in Salt's fantasy, then there is just as much value > in my fantasy. More in mine actually, since a greater percentage of > things in my fantasy are things that the animals are aware of. There > is practically nothing in Salt's fantasy that pigs could ever learn about. That's not the point asshole! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:40:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> wrote > >>>> All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! >>> >>>Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those >>>things? >>> >>>So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a >>>talking >>>pig? >> >> That's what it is, like my fantasy about a typing cow. > >Exactly, so your objections have been bullshit, which says you have no REAL >objections. > >>>You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the >>>conscience of the meat consumer, >> >> No. It was intended to create the impression that pigs know they will >> be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge. > >BULLSHIT! It conveys how the author believes we should think about >livestock. Right. He wants people to think that livestock know they will be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge. >>>never the pig itself. >>> >>>What a lying asshole. >> >> They are both fantasies. > >They are rhetorical devices. Fantasies. >They don't imply any powers in pigs or cows. The pigs or cows would be required to do things pigs and cows are not capable of doing, in order for the fantasies to be taken seriously. >> The difference between you and I is that >> I know and admit it, but you either don't know it or won't admit it. If >> there is any value in Salt's fantasy, then there is just as much value >> in my fantasy. More in mine actually, since a greater percentage of >> things in my fantasy are things that the animals are aware of. There >> is practically nothing in Salt's fantasy that pigs could ever learn about. > >That's not the point asshole! We are talking about things that are cruel *to the animals*. Most of the things Salt's pig is talking about are things that pigs will never know about, and therefore are not cruel to them. They aren't even aware that they are in danger while at the slaughterhouse, unless things go badly wrong. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:40:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: > > wrote >> >>>>> All the best to ALL of us (cows too :-)!!! >>>> >>>>Were you intending to convey that cows can actually talk and think those >>>>things? >>>> >>>>So what is all this crap about Salt's essay being a fantasy about a >>>>talking >>>>pig? >>> >>> That's what it is, like my fantasy about a typing cow. >> >>Exactly, so your objections have been bullshit, which says you have no >>REAL >>objections. >> >>>>You knew all along that the voice of the pig was intended to echo the >>>>conscience of the meat consumer, >>> >>> No. It was intended to create the impression that pigs know they will >>> be slaughtered, and suffer mentally from that knowledge. >> >>BULLSHIT! It conveys how the author believes we should think about >>livestock. > > Right. He wants people to think that livestock know they will be > slaughtered, > and suffer mentally from that knowledge. Actually the pig says he doesn't mind that part so much, he says "If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am:.." So you are dead wrong, you're not reading the passage for comprehension. In other words the author believes raising pigs for pork is not the real immoral thing, it's the self-serving rationalization that he finds offensive. So do I. >>>>never the pig itself. >>>> >>>>What a lying asshole. >>> >>> They are both fantasies. >> >>They are rhetorical devices. > > Fantasies. I doesn't matter what you call it. It doesn't imply human abilities in pigs. >>They don't imply any powers in pigs or cows. > > The pigs or cows would be required to do things pigs and cows are not > capable of doing, in order for the fantasies to be taken seriously. The device is not meant to imply that pigs are actually capable of such things as speech. How could you even suggest that? >>> The difference between you and I is that >>> I know and admit it, but you either don't know it or won't admit it. If >>> there is any value in Salt's fantasy, then there is just as much value >>> in my fantasy. More in mine actually, since a greater percentage of >>> things in my fantasy are things that the animals are aware of. There >>> is practically nothing in Salt's fantasy that pigs could ever learn >>> about. >> >>That's not the point asshole! > > We are talking about things that are cruel *to the animals*. No we are not, this is not about cruelty to animals at all, it is condemning a way of thinking that proposes that man may raise pigs for pork while at the same time claiming a moral victory because that same animal "experienced life". It has nothing to do with the pig, it has to do with immoral and unethical thinking. > Most of the > things Salt's pig is talking about are things that pigs will never know > about, > and therefore are not cruel to them. They aren't even aware that they are > in danger while at the slaughterhouse, unless things go badly wrong. The paragraph is all about the last part of the sentence I began above, which goes "..but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry." This is a message to people who use such devious and circular logic to justify something they do, it's not about the killing the pig at all. The passage.... " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2005 21:09:13 -0800, wrote: > > >>None of your ranting, even if true, supports your idiotic claim that >>life, in and of itself, is a benefit. > > > Life is the benefit which Life [per se is not a benefit. >>There is a huge difference >>between "some farm animals have decent lives" and "life is a benefit", >>why don't you understand this? > > > I have explained a number of times You have explained nothing. Life per se is not a benefit. You know it isn't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2005 21:09:13 -0800, wrote: > > >>None of your ranting, even if true, supports your idiotic claim that >>life, in and of itself, is a benefit. > > > Life is the benefit which Life [per se is not a benefit. >>There is a huge difference >>between "some farm animals have decent lives" and "life is a benefit", >>why don't you understand this? > > > I have explained a number of times You have explained nothing. Life per se is not a benefit. You know it isn't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:27:22 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>You are a shitbag, Explain what you're afraid might happen if people deliberately try to contribute to decent lives for farm animals with their lifestyle. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Muffin Logic | General Cooking | |||
| Logic of terroir | Wine | |||
| The real logic of what we should be eating | General Cooking | |||
| spinach logic | General Cooking | |||
| FAQ logic - Water | Tea | |||
Linear Mode
