A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ethics (was: Who's "Him"?)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 28th, 2008, 04:04 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Ethics (a topic jonathan ball the stupid sick pervert does not know)

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:43:33 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

What's absurd is your attempt to equate a natural predator/prey
relationship with your mere wish to eat 'meat'. In that case, yes,
the differences are such that they make the comparison absurd.


Yes because no nonhuman predators deliberately provide the
experience of life--good or bad--for their prey as humans do, so
the biggest reason for absurdity in trying to make a comparison is:

· The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
  #12  
Old October 29th, 2008, 11:11 AM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Ethics (a topic jonathan ball the stupid sick pervert does not know)

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:


You've lost, ball, but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit it.

Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they
do. Rights do not enter into it in any way.
The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law.
No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to
rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it.
They do it respective of how *they* feel about it
No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.
Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
animals are unfeeling
Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey.
And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this?
We all know it.
Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me?
Really.
Waiting....
Really.
Can't, can you.
Have.
Not even an attempt. As per usual.
Have done much more than an attempt.
Where, ball?
Everywhere,
[snip bull****]


[snip bull****]


Evasion and ipse dixit B$.

You tried to justify lions' predation - an
offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves
against human predation.
Spot the differences, troll?
The differences are such that they make the comparison absurd.


In both cases the underlying motivation is the same - survival.


Irrelevant.


Ipse dixit B$.

You cannot "justify" lions' predation by
invoking humans' legal right to *resist* predation by other humans.
They are completely different.


In both cases *necessity* is regarded as justification.

The lion *needs* no justification; it just preys on other animals. A
human *does* need legal justification to use violence against another human.


What's your justification for violence against innocent non-humans?

rabid froth snipped


  #13  
Old October 29th, 2008, 12:58 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Hoots
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 305
Default Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does notknow)

dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:04:09 -0400, Hoots wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote:

Goo wrote:
You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions' predation - an
offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves
against human predation. You ****ed up. You always **** up. You're a
****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot ****-up and dumb gash.
But she's a great dancer!
Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She


Maybe her points are sitting up high.

Way up firm and high?


May be, especially when she thinks about Goo ;¬)


Well, whoever the Gooster is would be lucky then I guess.

Anyway, it's just a song about "Autumn closing in" - it felt appropriate
in the chilly morning air which is back to the "points way up high".

Life is a circle.




appears to want to care about animals but can't get over the
way things disturb *her* enough to think about things realisitically,
which prevents her from really being able to consider the animals
and that probably applies to her own as well, unfortunately for them.
The greatest example is this: How could a person who thinks that
all livestock farming is wrong, possibly distinguish between which
types should be allowed and which should be altered or redesigned?
Answer: They necessarily could not. Here's another: How could a
person who refuses to acknowledge that some livestock have lives
of positive value, possibly distinguish between which do and which
do not? Answer: They necessarily could not. Is there any help for
such people? Answer: Yes, and they avoid it like the plague.

  #14  
Old October 29th, 2008, 04:18 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Ron Hamilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does notknow)

Hoots wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:04:09 -0400, Hoots wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote:

Goo wrote:
You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions' predation
- an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend
themselves against human predation. You ****ed up. You always
**** up. You're a ****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot ****-up
and dumb gash.
But she's a great dancer!
Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She

Maybe her points are sitting up high.

Way up firm and high?


May be, especially when she thinks about Goo ;¬)


Well, whoever the Gooster is would be lucky then I guess.


Goo is the person to whom you replied: Goo****wit "Bumper" David
Harrison. He's a stupid high school drop-out living on a rusty
houseboat on Lake Lanier, northeast of Atlanta. He is admittedly
stupid. Goo is short for Goober, and as you know, Goober is a common
term for stupid southerners. Goo is also known as ****wit.



Anyway, it's just a song about "Autumn closing in" - it felt appropriate
in the chilly morning air which is back to the "points way up high".

Life is a circle.




appears to want to care about animals but can't get over the
way things disturb *her* enough to think about things realisitically,
which prevents her from really being able to consider the animals
and that probably applies to her own as well, unfortunately for them.
The greatest example is this: How could a person who thinks that
all livestock farming is wrong, possibly distinguish between which
types should be allowed and which should be altered or redesigned?
Answer: They necessarily could not. Here's another: How could a
person who refuses to acknowledge that some livestock have lives
of positive value, possibly distinguish between which do and which
do not? Answer: They necessarily could not. Is there any help for
such people? Answer: Yes, and they avoid it like the plague.

  #15  
Old October 29th, 2008, 06:46 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 172
Default Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does not know)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:58:18 -0400, Hoots wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:04:09 -0400, Hoots wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote:

Goo wrote:
You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions' predation - an
offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves
against human predation. You ****ed up. You always **** up. You're a
****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot ****-up and dumb gash.
But she's a great dancer!
Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She

Maybe her points are sitting up high.

Way up firm and high?


May be, especially when she thinks about Goo ;¬)


Well, whoever the Gooster is would be lucky then I guess.


Goo has recently been pretending to be "Rudy Canoza". In the past
and maybe still today he has pretended to be quite a few "different people"
often pretending to be more than one at a time, congratulating himselves and
supporting himselves in various ways. The Goober has pretended to be all of
the following, and mo

Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog

elvira
Dieter
"Dieter
"

Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
****tard
Apoo
Ted Bell

Jay Santos

Trappist

Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra

  #16  
Old October 30th, 2008, 12:06 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Hoots
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 305
Default Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does notknow)

Ron Hamilton wrote:
Hoots wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:04:09 -0400, Hoots wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote:

Goo wrote:
You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions'
predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to
defend themselves against human predation. You ****ed up. You
always **** up. You're a ****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot
****-up and dumb gash.
But she's a great dancer!
Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She

Maybe her points are sitting up high.

Way up firm and high?

May be, especially when she thinks about Goo ;¬)


Well, whoever the Gooster is would be lucky then I guess.


Goo is the person to whom you replied: Goo****wit "Bumper" David
Harrison. He's a stupid high school drop-out living on a rusty
houseboat on Lake Lanier, northeast of Atlanta. He is admittedly
stupid. Goo is short for Goober, and as you know, Goober is a common
term for stupid southerners. Goo is also known as ****wit.


There seems to be a large cast of characters in this play, but without a
libretto, I can't figure them out.

On with the show!





Anyway, it's just a song about "Autumn closing in" - it felt
appropriate in the chilly morning air which is back to the "points way
up high".

Life is a circle.




appears to want to care about animals but can't get over the
way things disturb *her* enough to think about things realisitically,
which prevents her from really being able to consider the animals
and that probably applies to her own as well, unfortunately for them.
The greatest example is this: How could a person who thinks that
all livestock farming is wrong, possibly distinguish between which
types should be allowed and which should be altered or redesigned?
Answer: They necessarily could not. Here's another: How could a
person who refuses to acknowledge that some livestock have lives
of positive value, possibly distinguish between which do and which
do not? Answer: They necessarily could not. Is there any help for
such people? Answer: Yes, and they avoid it like the plague.

  #17  
Old October 30th, 2008, 01:20 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Ethics (a topic jonathan ball the stupid sick pervert does not know)

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:

You've lost, ball, but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit it.

Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they
do. Rights do not enter into it in any way.
The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law.
No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to
rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it.
They do it respective of how *they* feel about it
No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.
Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
animals are unfeeling
Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey.
And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this?
We all know it.
Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me?
Really.
Waiting....
Really.
Can't, can you.
Have.
Not even an attempt. As per usual.
Have done much more than an attempt.
Where, ball?
Everywhere,
[snip bull****]
[snip bull****]


[snip bull****]


Evasion and ipse dixit B$.

Tell us how you 'know' that lions don't experience hunger.

You tried to justify lions' predation - an
offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves
against human predation.
Spot the differences, troll?
The differences are such that they make the comparison absurd.
In both cases the underlying motivation is the same - survival.
Irrelevant.


[snip bull****]


Evasion and ipse dixit B$.

You cannot "justify" lions' predation by
invoking humans' legal right to *resist* predation by other humans.
They are completely different.


In both cases *necessity* is regarded as justification.


No, absolutely *not*. In *NEITHER* case does "necessity" have anything
to do with it. In the lion's case, *no* justification is necessary. In
the human's case, it is *not* "necessity". Rights do not, ever, depend
on "necessity".


'In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for
the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise
unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
or others ..
...
If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person
attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought
was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only
reasonable defensive action had been taken."
...'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law

The lion *needs* no justification; it just preys on other animals. A
human *does* need legal justification to use violence against another human.


What's your justification for violence against innocent non-humans?


Don't need any for that, either. "Innocent" means nothing there.


Evasion and ipse dixit B$. You cannot justify it. Simple as.




  #18  
Old October 30th, 2008, 01:33 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Ethics

"Ron Hamilton" wrote in message m...

From: Ron Hamilton
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.101.104.64

From: Rudy Canoza
Reply-To:
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.101.104.64

Is fraud ethically permitted and morally correct behaviour, ball?







  #19  
Old October 30th, 2008, 09:01 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Ethics (a topic lesley the stupid foot-rubbing gash does not know)

"Rudy Canoza" wrote
pearl wrote:


Meaning to do the *minimum* necessary to avoid injury or death. But the
*right* to self defense does not depend on necessity in any way. It is
how the actions undertaken are seen, not the right itself.

*DEFENSIVE* action, you stupid gash. The lion commits an *offensive*
action when it preys.


In fact predators engage in acts of aggression that are unrelated to any
immediate need to survive, male lions attack and kill hyenas simply because
they are enemies, animals kill cubs, we think because they see them as
possible future competitors. Animals are aggressive in defense of territory,
food, status, mates. None of it has any "moral" component.

You lose. You're just too stupid for this.


The lion *needs* no justification; it just preys on other animals. A
human *does* need legal justification to use violence against another
human.
What's your justification for violence against innocent non-humans?
Don't need any for that, either. "Innocent" means nothing there.


[snip bull****] You cannot justify it.


No need to justify it.


  #20  
Old October 31st, 2008, 03:10 PM posted to soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
pearl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Ethics (a topic jonathan ball the stupid sick pervert does not know)

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message m...
pearl wrote:

...
You've lost, ball, but are too dishonest and cowardly to admit it.

Non-human animals don't have "rights". They just do what they
do. Rights do not enter into it in any way.
The right to do what they do - in accordance with natural law.
No, not a "right". They just do what they do without any thought to
rights. They do it *irrespective* of how we feel about it.
They do it respective of how *they* feel about it
No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.
Still persisting with your erroneous imaginings that non-humans
animals are unfeeling
Animals don't have any feelings about being predator or prey.
And how exactly do you presume to 'know' this?
We all know it.
Really? How interesting. Well, aren't you going to 'enlighten' me?
Really.
Waiting....
Really.
Can't, can you.
Have.
Not even an attempt. As per usual.
Have done much more than an attempt.
Where, ball?
Everywhere,


Evasion and ipse dixit B$.

Tell us how you 'know' that lions don't experience hunger.


I never said they didn't. It's irrelevant to the discussion.


pearl:
They do it respective of how *they* feel about it -- hungry.

ball:
No. They don't have *any* feelings or thoughts about it.

You snipped "hungry". Lying is like breathing to ball.

You tried to justify lions' predation - an
offensive action - by invoking humans' right to defend themselves
against human predation.
Spot the differences, troll?
The differences are such that they make the comparison absurd.
In both cases the underlying motivation is the same - survival.
Irrelevant.


Evasion and ipse dixit B$.

You cannot "justify" lions' predation by
invoking humans' legal right to *resist* predation by other humans.
They are completely different.
In both cases *necessity* is regarded as justification.
No, absolutely *not*. In *NEITHER* case does "necessity" have anything
to do with it. In the lion's case, *no* justification is necessary. In
the human's case, it is *not* "necessity". Rights do not, ever, depend
on "necessity".


'In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for
the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise
unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves
or others ..


Nothing about "necessity" in that.


'The adjective in order has 3 meanings:

Meaning #1: appropriate or even needed in the circumstances
...
http://www.answers.com/topic/in-order

And it has nothing to do with lions.


In both cases *necessity* [to preserve life] is regarded as justification.

If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person
attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought
was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only
reasonable defensive action had been taken."


Meaning to do the *minimum* necessary to avoid injury or death.


Necessary, to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others.
Just as the lion does what is necessary to preserve physical integrity.

But the
*right* to self defense does not depend on necessity in any way. It is
how the actions undertaken are seen, not the right itself.


Nonsense. Bar necessity there simply is no right to self-defence.

*DEFENSIVE* action, The lion commits an *offensive*
action when it preys.


Irrelevant. It's *SELF-PRESERVATION* either way.

You lose. You're just too stupid for this.


In your delusions, loco.

The lion *needs* no justification; it just preys on other animals. A
human *does* need legal justification to use violence against another human.
What's your justification for violence against innocent non-humans?
Don't need any for that, either. "Innocent" means nothing there.


Evasion and ipse dixit B$. You cannot justify it. Simple as.


No need to justify it.


As a proclaimed moral agent you absolutely do, but you can't.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Bad Fat" or "Bad Carbs" Linked to Cognitive Decline and Dementia Jim Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 November 12th, 2007 05:26 PM
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 1st, 2007 05:27 PM
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" Jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 January 20th, 2007 04:20 PM
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" oregonchick General Discussion 7 September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM
Google "Aspartame" and you get "toxic diet soda" [email protected] General Discussion 0 May 5th, 2006 08:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.