On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
>and presented no challenge:
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
<rupertmccallum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 01:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
<dragonbl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> On 1 Jul, 18:54, Rupert <rupertmccal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> These quotations from David Harrison are certainly very
interesting.
>>>>>> Engaging in an activity which is like to cause injury or death to
>>>>>> humans, or for that matter any sentient being, is not an ethically
>>>>>> justifiable way to behave and it's a very poor strategy for doing
>>>>>> something about animal suffering, which one would hope is the
ultimate
>>>>>> goal. I will not donate money to PETA because I do not wish my
money
>>>>>> to end up in the hands of the Earth Liberation Front and many of us
in
>>>>>> the animal protection movement frequently have cause to feel
annoyed
>>>>>> with PETA as one of the more publicly visible organisations in the
>>>>>> animal protection movement who identify themselves as "animal
rights".
>>>>>> Your typical animal rights activist doesn't really fit the image
you
>>>>>> would normally have of a terrorist.
>>>>> PETA's track record in animal welfare is abysmal - since they think
>>>>> pets should not exist due to their belief in "animal rights" - and
>>>>> there was a scandal with PETA killing than 90 percent of the
adoptable
>>>>> animals in its care during 2007. Which means the sadistic PETA
freaks
>>>>> will not get a single penny off me -
EVER!http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
>>>>> Now, I'm an omnivore, and very interested in animal welfare
>>>>> (something quite a few vegans deny is possible).
>>>> It's people like yourself who contribute to better lives for
livestock
>>>> with your lifestyle. Vegans do NOT. It's people like yourself who
care
>>>> about those animals' lives, NOT vegans. They have no argument
>>>> against your interest in AW. Their elimination objective works
against
>>>> providing decent lives.
>>>>
>>> Most animals in modern farms do not have decent lives, and this is a
>>> consequence of the mindset which says that it is okay for us to use
>>> animals for our own ends.
>>
>> It's because the lack of caring is so universal that some animals
>> are living in conditions which condemn them to a life of negative
>> value.
>
>Naturally you're missing rupie's point, Goo, you stupid lying
>pig-****er. His point - I disagree with it, but unlike you, I get it -
>is that if you feel it's morally acceptable to use animals for our own
>ends, then there is no reason to to care about their welfare.
I disbelieve that completely of course. Why do you believe it,
Goo?
>You can't address his point,
I can point out that if you people were right about it, there
would be no animal welfare organizations, Goo. Since there
are Goober, it means that you are wrong.
.. . .
>>> There is no reason why providing "decent" lives for livestock is
>>> better than allowing wild animals to fill up the ecological niche.
>>
>> It seems we've been here before. When you think it all the
>>way through:
>>Whatever reason we grow crops, wildlife including insects are not
>>welcome in the crop fields, so they're poisoned etc. The idea is
>>that no animals live there, not that wildlife live there. You people
>>act like it would take less land, but since animal products have
>>so much more nutritional value it's likely to take as much or more
>>land to grow veggies in order to make it up. Animal by-products
>>are such a part of our lives, that there's no way to calculate what
>>the effects of eliminating them would be.
>
>You stupid, STUPID pig-****ing cracker, Goo. What he's saying, Goo -
>Goo - is much cropland wouldn't be cropland if it weren't growing crops
>to feed to animals.
I just got through pointing out that there's no way to calculate
what the effects of eliminating them would be, Goob.
>It most likely would revert to whatever natural
>state it was in before being made into cropland, Goo. It certainly
>wouldn't become housing or industrial property
All farmland that I've seen people stop farming was used as
housing or industrial property, Goo. Also Goober, you can't
give any evidence at all that the majority of farmland people
stop farming, is left alone to become wildlife shelters. You
eliminationists desperately WANT people to believe that's
what happends to it, but you can't give a significant number
of cases in which it has happened, Goo.
|
