32 Forum posts tagged with "domestic animals"
re:No loss to the animals
In category
Veg food
Written by
janny6
As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then either.
Jonathan Ball, nomination for Order of the Holey Sockpuppet
In category
Veg food
Written by
Lord Pantheon
Hello, k00kologists -- may I direct your attention to the following
state of affairs.
...To wit, a Usenet self-mutilation of sorts:
k00ky posters inventing sockpuppet personas so they can beat themselves up with their other sockpuppet personas. Among other things.
I think you may find some fresh meat here -- (pun intended, hee hee hee...) Google Jonathan OR Jon Ball for starters...
re:The Gonad snips and runs
In category
Veg food
Written by
Interficium
"ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than it would be to continue doing so. The Gonad has been asked several times for whom or what it would be better, and it was correctly predicted in advance that he would slink away from the question without answering. This is a record of some of the posts in which he has cowardly slinked away from the question:
questions?
re:"vegans": willingly gullible fools, when it suits
In category
Veg food
Written by
Interficium
All this discussion about grass-fed beef, and the risky contortions of "vegans" and quasi-"vegans" to avoid acknowledging that grass-fed beef *could* be a lesser harm (to animals) food than some vegetables, illustrate an interesting but disappointing phenomenon. I have to add "predictable" to the list as well. The phenomenon is that "vegans" are among the class of people who suspend all disbelie
Stop lying about animal welfare, Fuckwit David Harrison
In category
Ethics
Written by
Shanku
Animal welfare is not some end in itself, Fuckwit.
People support better welfare for domestic animals, but
ONLY if those animals exist. There is no moral imperative for those animals to exist, Fuckwit, thus there is no absolute moral imperative for better animal welfare.
The ridiculous notion that animal rights would
"prevent" animal welfare is a stupid lie. It deserves no more consideration
re:exposing Jonathan Ball & Dutch as "ARAs"
In category
Ethics
Written by
syrinx2112ad
For years I've been pointing out that Jonathan Ball (from here on referred to more correctly as the Gonad) and Dutch are dishonest
"ARAs", pretending very poorly to be "AR" opponents. They did it attempting to win the confidence of true "AR" opponents, in order to have more influence on their thinking about issues which could be significant to "AR". The Gonad's character was also designed to make
re:Committee on Animal Nutrition: dogs do not need meat
In category
Ethics
Written by
SomeGuyDammit
It doesn't sound as though you looked very hard, Kristine.
Have you heard of the Committee on Animal Nutrition (CAN)?
CAN publish "The Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals", the reference used by veterinarians and animal nutritionists the length and breadth of the US.
They are a committee of the the US National Research Council, coming under the Board of Agriculture and National Resources
re:No loss to the animals
In category
Ethics
Written by
Major Tom
As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then either.
re:Jonathan Ball, nomination for Order of the Holey Sockpuppet
In category
Ethics
Written by
thinair0
Hello, k00kologists -- may I direct your attention to the following
state of affairs.
...To wit, a Usenet self-mutilation of sorts:
k00ky posters inventing sockpuppet personas so they can beat themselves up with their other sockpuppet personas. Among other things.
I think you may find some fresh meat here -- (pun intended, hee hee hee...) Google Jonathan OR Jon Ball for starters...
re:The Gonad snips and runs
In category
Ethics
Written by
thinair0
"ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than it would be to continue doing so. The Gonad has been asked several times for whom or what it would be better, and it was correctly predicted in advance that he would slink away from the question without answering. This is a record of some of the posts in which he has cowardly slinked away from the question:
questions?
re:"vegans": willingly gullible fools, when it suits
In category
Ethics
Written by
thinair0
All this discussion about grass-fed beef, and the risky contortions of "vegans" and quasi-"vegans" to avoid acknowledging that grass-fed beef *could* be a lesser harm (to animals) food than some vegetables, illustrate an interesting but disappointing phenomenon. I have to add "predictable" to the list as well. The phenomenon is that "vegans" are among the class of people who suspend all disbelie
re:Here's to Cerkowski
In category
Ethics
Written by
darkstarr
But there is the danger that people who want to promote better lives for domestic animals in the future (Animal Welfare), are unawarely contributing to "Animal Rights" groups instead.
People should be very careful who they send their money to, because the goal of "AR" groups is to cause the extinction of domestic animals, not improve their welfare. The accomplishment of the "AR" goal would make we
dogs vs. voles
In category
Ethics
Written by
ZenpunK
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4264918/Some of you here want me to admit that all mammals have the exact same value, but I won't. As you can see in the reference above we have manipulated the genetics of dogs to make them more valuable to us (their behavior. etc). Read it, it's a fascinating article. It's like taking yarn before and after you make a sweater. It's more valuable when it's made in
Attack of the wild hogs
In category
Politics
Written by
Remco
Hog wild in Texas
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Texas is hogtied. Wild pigs are closing in on other states, too. The Lone Star State is grappling with the nation's largest population of feral pigs — squealing, rooting hordes of hogs that can destroy farmland and wildlife habitats, sully public parks, attack pets and domestic animals, and spread diseases such as tuberculosis an
Girl Scouts trap beavers
In category
Politics
Written by
4657
Girl Scouts hunt beavers and fur flies
By Rachel D''Oro
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Let other Girl Scouts make bird feeders out of bleach bottles and glue together little birch-bark canoes.
Troop 34 in Alaska is learning to trap and skin beavers.
In a practice that has angered animal rights activists, the girls are killing the beavers as part of a state flood-management
re:Fuckwit's beliefs - the two crucial ones
In category
Politics
Written by
gooser
Fuckwit's goofy attempt at a trick is to pretend he is urging "vegans" to "promote decent lives" for farm animals, when in fact, we see that he wants "vegans" to support life per se, not decent lives, for farm animals. Among thousands of things he has written, two in particular make clear that Fuckwit believes life per se for farm animals, not "decent lives", is what he's really pushing:
Stop lying about animal welfare, Fuckwit David Harrison
In category
Politics
Written by
JMAC
Animal welfare is not some end in itself, Fuckwit.
People support better welfare for domestic animals, but
ONLY if those animals exist. There is no moral imperative for those animals to exist, Fuckwit, thus there is no absolute moral imperative for better animal welfare.
The ridiculous notion that animal rights would
"prevent" animal welfare is a stupid lie. It deserves no more consideration
re:exposing Jonathan Ball & Dutch as "ARAs"
In category
Politics
Written by
Tom sword
For years I've been pointing out that Jonathan Ball (from here on referred to more correctly as the Gonad) and Dutch are dishonest
"ARAs", pretending very poorly to be "AR" opponents. They did it attempting to win the confidence of true "AR" opponents, in order to have more influence on their thinking about issues which could be significant to "AR". The Gonad's character was also designed to make
re:Concern for Chickens
In category
Politics
Written by
sroethig
<snip>
<snip>
Actually, I'm interested in all kinds of animals, and always eager to learn more about their lives and needs. I learned about the seminar several days ago, and wanted to take it before the post on chicken care even showed up here. I have no plans to raise wolves or antelope or gorillas either, but I still watch Animal Planet, read books, and enjoy learning about their
Animal Rights Opposition....Hello!
In category
Politics
Written by
Dread Legion
Okay, I'm a bunny hugger, but no matter what forum I find on the subject of animal rights, there are "crackers" who don't know how to debate the issue, just plain mean and nasty. Why is that?
I would like to believe they are just as passionate for their cause, or "side" on this issue, but they just strike me as clueless, as well as careless, with their arguments. Why is that?
Okay, according to
re:No loss to the animals
In category
Politics
Written by
rustycruiser
As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then either.
re:Jonathan Ball, nomination for Order of the Holey Sockpuppet
In category
Politics
Written by
jebber
Hello, k00kologists -- may I direct your attention to the following
state of affairs.
...To wit, a Usenet self-mutilation of sorts:
k00ky posters inventing sockpuppet personas so they can beat themselves up with their other sockpuppet personas. Among other things.
I think you may find some fresh meat here -- (pun intended, hee hee hee...) Google Jonathan OR Jon Ball for starters...
re:The Gonad snips and runs
In category
Politics
Written by
jebber
"ARAs" feel that it is better to stop raising animals for food than it would be to continue doing so. The Gonad has been asked several times for whom or what it would be better, and it was correctly predicted in advance that he would slink away from the question without answering. This is a record of some of the posts in which he has cowardly slinked away from the question:
questions?
re:Here's to Cerkowski
In category
Politics
Written by
Jurrel
But there is the danger that people who want to promote better lives for domestic animals in the future (Animal Welfare), are unawarely contributing to "Animal Rights" groups instead.
People should be very careful who they send their money to, because the goal of "AR" groups is to cause the extinction of domestic animals, not improve their welfare. The accomplishment of the "AR" goal would make we
Are there ANY serious anti-ARAs in these related groups?
In category
Ethics
Written by
Eiji Shinkuro
"Radical Moderate" is an older participant of aaev, posting here behind a new identity. A quick search through Google shows that his first post through the host 67.75.112.112 at alt.test was made only at the beginning of this month, and from there he came directly here to troll old ground.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Acc
Fake quotes by Dreck Nash
In category
Ethics
Written by
Touya Miho
"We now know that man inhabited warm areas, allowing the favourable conditions for a fruit regimen, which according to the Anatomic laws, is his natural diet."
Dreck Nash, unemployed car tinkerer, attributes the above quote to Charles Darwin. The quote is almost certainly a fake.
0 Products tagged with "domestic animals"
