What's in pet food?

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:06:06 -0700, Goo wrote:

On 6/20/2011 8:27 PM, Char wrote:
On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's
in the can,
because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds
and flocks of
livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be
used for pet food:

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised
to be pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo

and so believes labels saying things like the following really
do represent
what's inside:

cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey
medley,
porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye
steak, steak
florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma,
roast turkey, new
york strip, filet mignon

The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though
he feels certain
animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much
afraid to say
what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've
narrowed it down to him
pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the
labels on the
cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so
afraid to say that's
what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to
the conclusion
that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't
figure out why
rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and
he also can't
figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times
more expensive than
a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!!
Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL.

Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!!
You can start by not cross posting it. Duh!
There's nothing wrong with cross posting.
There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts.
You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to
believe
that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more
animals
experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they
believe it and so
they are opposed to it.
There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog
food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that
will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and
worse!

However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it?
They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity,
regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to
contribute to
are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals.

So what?

Exactly.

There is no virtue in causing domestic livestock to live; none whatever.

dh pointed out:
The worst thing that could happen for
eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when
animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value.

Char replied:
But that is already happening. Many of us buy eggs from chickens that
haven't been factory farmed and lived wonderful lives running loose
eating bugs and other good things. We also buy beef from cattle that
were grass fed in huge fields living wonderful lives running around as
cattle should, and killed in a humane fashion. Same story with pigs and
other farm animals.

In article ,
Char wrote:

On 6/21/2011 5:13 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:27:02 -0400, wrote:

On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is
what's in the can,
because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and
flocks of
livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used
for pet food:

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised
to be pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo

and so believes labels saying things like the following really do
represent
what's inside:

cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey
medley,
porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye
steak, steak
florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast
turkey, new
york strip, filet mignon

The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he
feels certain
animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much
afraid to say
what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed
it down to him
pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the
labels on the
cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid
to say that's
what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to
the conclusion
that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure
out why
rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he
also can't
figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more
expensive than
a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!!
Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL.

Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!!
You can start by not cross posting it. Duh!
There's nothing wrong with cross posting.
There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts.
You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like
to believe
that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more
animals
experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe
it and so
they are opposed to it.
There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog
food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that
will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and
worse!

However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it?
They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human
captivity,
regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to
contribute to
are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals.
So what?
So they pretend otherwise by their use of the gross misnomer for one
thing.
The general impression they want to present is that they want to provide
rights
for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would
involve
the elimination of domestic animals. They present themselves as something
they
are not, and they exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their
elimination objectives. I'm convinced they do the latter very dishonestly
sometimes if not usually, too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with them doing
that,
but I like to point it out in case some other people might share my feeling
that
there is. I also believe they are responsible for at least one outbreak of
hoof
and mouth disease too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of it, but I'm
opposed to all of it even if not.

Wonderful!

But you really aren't going to educate anyone on newsgroups so you are
wasting your time. Go start a Facebook page or a website where you will
get a tremendous audience. Most people don't even know what a usenet
group is.

Better yet sue those groups for misrepresenting themselves.

Bottom line is you are feeding trolls.

Best Kill File George, dh, and Dutch. It took forever to get them out of
another group I post to. They seem to be in search of an audience, and
don't care if their posts have content or not.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 17:00:15 -0700, Billy wrote:

dh@. wrote:

The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he
feels certain
animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much
afraid to say
what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed
it down to him
pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the
labels on the
cans accurately represent what's inside.

Best Kill File George, dh, and Dutch. It took forever to get them out of
another group I post to. They seem to be in search of an audience, and
don't care if their posts have content or not.

You are OPPOSED TO the content. In this case, for whatever reason, you are
OPPOSED TO people thinking in detail about what goes into pet food? WHY are you
opposed? That's what now comes into question. Why WOULD you be? Goo wants people
to believe things that are not true, while so far you just seem to be opposed to
them thinking about it at all. Though somewhat similar, those are not the same
thing.

On 6/28/2011 6:34 AM, tidbit wrote:
****wit David Harrison attempted to bull**** but was thwarted:

The general impression they want to present is that they want to
provide rights
for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would
involve
the elimination of domestic animals.

You want ARAs to prove they respect animals by eating them. The more
they eat the more their respect. They don't eat animals, therefore they
don't want animals to have rights.

That is a nice short summary of ****wit's position. In his "Logic of
the Larder", Henry Salt paraphrased Coleridge, writing

He prayeth best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.


Now, to paraphrase Salt in order to mock ****wit, we can rewrite it

He respecteth [rignts] best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.

****wit pretends to believe that causing animals to live in order for us
to kill them and eat them is doing the animals a favor. He pretends to
believe that causing animals to "get to experience life" is conferring a
"benefit" on them.

I took ****wit's silly illogic apart over 12 years ago, and he is still
at it. He hates my guts because I have persuaded everyone who ever was
a little confused and thinking that maybe ****wit was onto something,
that instead ****wit was spouting dishonest bull**** and illogic, and
without exception they rejected his specious nonsense. No one who has
participated here ever signed on and stayed on with ****wit's silly
bull****.

Causing animals to live is not doing them any favor or giving them a
benefit.

****wit has never understood the implication of "aras'" belief in animal
rights. He thinks he has caught them in a glaring logical
contradiction, but there is no contradiction at all - it is ****wit who
has fundamentally failed to grasp the implication of animal rights.

On 6/28/2011 11:13 AM, tidbit wrote:
On 28/06/2011 14:52, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/28/2011 6:34 AM, tidbit wrote:
****wit David Harrison attempted to bull**** but was thwarted:

The general impression they want to present is that they want to
provide rights
for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would
involve
the elimination of domestic animals.

You want ARAs to prove they respect animals by eating them. The more
they eat the more their respect. They don't eat animals, therefore they
don't want animals to have rights.

That is a nice short summary of ****wit's position. In his "Logic of
the Larder", Henry Salt paraphrased Coleridge, writing

He prayeth best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.


Now, to paraphrase Salt in order to mock ****wit, we can rewrite it

He respecteth [rignts] best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.

I'll Google him.

****wit pretends to believe that causing animals to live in order for us
to kill them and eat them is doing the animals a favor. He pretends to
believe that causing animals to "get to experience life" is conferring a
"benefit" on them.

Well - - - isn't it?

No.


Didn't you benefit from being born? Didn't your
parents confer a benefit on you by bringing you into existence?

No to both. Here's why.

First we have to define benefit. A benefit is something that improves
the welfare (or state of well-being) of an entity that has an
experiential reality. You might think of some other senses or meanings
of benefit, but they're inapplicable here. So, to a hungry person, food
is a benefit: a hungry person is better of - has a higher state of
well-being - if he gets to eat some food. Fair enough?

Before an experiential-reality entity exists, there is no welfare or
sense of well-being to be improved. Coming into existence does not
improve an entity's welfare - it *establishes* it in the first place.
That is not an improvement to it.

I did not benefit by being born. Once I *was* born, I was in a position
to receive benefits, but being born itself was not a benefit.


Call it
an /advantage/. Can we not look back to yesterday and say that without
the /advantage/ of yesterday's life we would not be alive today?

That's trivially true, but it doesn't change the basic fact that being
born, compared with never being born, is not a benefit. You can see
this by looking at it in the other direction: if being born is an a
benefit or advantage, then never being born must *necessarily* be a
disadvantage or "disbenefit" - that is, a worse state of well-being.
But what entity would experience the lower welfare, the worse state of
well-being? Clearly, that is illogical nonsense: if there's no entity
with the state of well-being, there can be no experiencing of the
disadvantage.

As Henry Salt says in "Logic of the Larder" (you can find it here, to
save you time: http://www.animal-rights-library.com...-c/salt02.htm),

The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in
existence may feel that he would rather have lived than not, but he
must first have the terra firma of existence to argue from; the
moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent,
he talks nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or
unhappiness, of that of which we can predicate nothing.


There actually are two reasons coming into existence logically *cannot*
be a benefit. The first is as I have given above: until the
welfare-bearing entity exists, there is no welfare to improve, and such
an improvement is the definition of benefit. The second is that, even
if you consider that an entity might "pre-exist" - which I believe to be
rubbish - we still can know nothing about the entity's welfare or state
of well-being during that period of "pre-existence" - that is, we don't
know if the entity was better off, worse off, or had exactly the same
state of well-being as it has once it exists.

I think this is entirely convincing. I don't believe in any notion of
"pre-existence"; I only threw that out there to cover the potential.
Regardless whether or not welfare-bearing entities "pre-exist", coming
into the existence we know cannot be a benefit, for either of the two
reasons given.


I took ****wit's silly illogic apart over 12 years ago, and he is still
at it. He hates my guts because I have persuaded everyone who ever was
a little confused and thinking that maybe ****wit was onto something,
that instead ****wit was spouting dishonest bull**** and illogic, and
without exception they rejected his specious nonsense. No one who has
participated here ever signed on and stayed on with ****wit's silly
bull****.

Causing animals to live is not doing them any favor or giving them a
benefit.

Then maybe you can "persuade" me into believing my parents weren't kind
to me by /getting me to experience life/ - how coming into existence in
the first place isn't an /advantage/ or a /benefit/ to me, because on
the face of it it seems I did /benefit/ from my birth, and that in
return I should be grateful to them for that favour.

See above. Suppose they hadn't - suppose, even, for the sake of
argument, that they could more or less magically go back in time and
"undo" your existence. I don't mean they kill you - I mean they simply
can change something in the past such that, today, you don't exist and
never existed. Who would experience the "loss"? Clearly, not you - you
never existed, if they undo your existence as described. (I'm not
talking about whether or not they would feel a loss, a sense of
deprivation, if they did that; we're talking only about the entity
itself and its own sense of well-being.)


As I type I get a
shrinking feeling I'm making a glaring error somewhere, so I'd be
grateful if you can show me where.

I believe you are, and I hope I have helped you see it above.


dh@ seems to think that animals
benefit from being born to be used for meat and owe their lives in
return for that /beneficial/ favour. But that's not conferring a benefit
on *them* because the intention behind it is solely for *his* own benefit.

That's a *different* problem in ****wit's (dh@) pile of rubbish belief
system. ****wit likes to pretend there is some altruism in causing the
animals to be born and "get to experience life", to use his wretchedly
leaden terminology. This is the very essence of his criticism of
"aras": he claims they are being "selfish" by not conferring this
benefit on animals.

However, ****wit has never cared about animal welfare at all; not in the
least. Consider these quotes I've culled from his spew over more than
12 years:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003


Clearly - without any doubt whatever - he doesn't care about animal
welfare, their well-being. Look carefully at that second one, in which
he says that even if all the animals he ate had terrible lies, he would
just ignore their suffering and go on eating them. He lamely says that
doesn't mean he doesn't care about their welfare, but in fact that is
*EXACTLY* what it means - ignoring their suffering and continuing to
cause more of it is the very essence of not caring about them, except
for *his* benefit.


****wit has never understood the implication of "aras'" belief in animal
rights. He thinks he has caught them in a glaring logical
contradiction, but there is no contradiction at all - it is ****wit who
has fundamentally failed to grasp the implication of animal rights.

I think the argument for animal rights hinges on what we are morally
obligated _not_ to do to them. If it is morally impermissible to treat
an animal cruelly it seems to me that they have a right against that
treatment. I don't think they can be cruel to each other because they
are amoral and therefore don't have rights between themselves. But we
can be cruel to them and I believe they have a right against that cruelty.

I disagree about it being a right they hold. I believe we enact laws
against animal cruelty because we believe it is fundamentally wrong to
cause suffering to animals, absent some compelling reason. *WE* are
bothered by it.

Consider ethical evaluations regarding humans in which we don't believe
there is a right to something, but we nonetheless consider the
possibility that some course of action is unethical. For example,
suppose I tell my son that if he gets good marks at the end of the
school term, I will buy him a new bicycle. Suppose he brings home his
report card, and it has nothing but the highest marks, and I tell him
I've changed my mind (arbitrarily), and I'm not going to buy him the
bicycle. Clearly, that's immoral, but not because I've violated any
right he holds. Parents /ought/ to be truthful with their children, and
respect the children as entities deserving fair and ethical treatment,
but the children don't have a right to that.

On 6/28/2011 4:52 PM, tidbit wrote:
On 28/06/2011 21:21, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/28/2011 11:13 AM, tidbit wrote:
On 28/06/2011 14:52, George Plimpton wrote:
On 6/28/2011 6:34 AM, tidbit wrote:
****wit David Harrison attempted to bull**** but was thwarted:

The general impression they want to present is that they want to
provide rights
for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it
would
involve
the elimination of domestic animals.

You want ARAs to prove they respect animals by eating them. The more
they eat the more their respect. They don't eat animals, therefore
they
don't want animals to have rights.

That is a nice short summary of ****wit's position. In his "Logic of
the Larder", Henry Salt paraphrased Coleridge, writing

He prayeth best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.


Now, to paraphrase Salt in order to mock ****wit, we can rewrite it

He respecteth [rignts] best, who eateth best
All things both great and small.

I'll Google him.

****wit pretends to believe that causing animals to live in order
for us
to kill them and eat them is doing the animals a favor. He pretends to
believe that causing animals to "get to experience life" is
conferring a
"benefit" on them.

Well - - - isn't it?

No.


Didn't you benefit from being born? Didn't your
parents confer a benefit on you by bringing you into existence?

No to both. Here's why.

First we have to define benefit. A benefit is something that improves
the welfare (or state of well-being) of an entity that has an
experiential reality. You might think of some other senses or meanings
of benefit, but they're inapplicable here. So, to a hungry person, food
is a benefit: a hungry person is better of - has a higher state of
well-being - if he gets to eat some food. Fair enough?

Before an experiential-reality entity exists, there is no welfare or
sense of well-being to be improved. Coming into existence does not
improve an entity's welfare - it *establishes* it in the first place.
That is not an improvement to it.

I did not benefit by being born. Once I *was* born, I was in a position
to receive benefits, but being born itself was not a benefit.

Thank you for giving me your time to explain so clearly my mistake. We
can only set the peg back to the instant where we were conceived.
Obviously, before that moment, we did not exist and could not receive
anything.

[...]

Glad to have been of help.

In which of the numerous newsgroups that ****wit spammed are you
following this thread?

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:13:16 +0100, tidbit wrote:

dh@ seems to think that animals
benefit from being born to be used for meat

Some do and some do not. Can you get that far? Goo can't.

None do.

****wit David Harrison lied:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:52:51 +0100, wrote:

On 28/06/2011 21:21, George Plimpton wrote:

I did not benefit by being born. Once I *was* born, I was in a position
to receive benefits, but being born itself was not a benefit.

Thank you for giving me your time to explain so clearly my mistake. We
can only set the peg back to the instant where we were conceived.
Obviously, before that moment, we did not exist and could not receive
anything.

Yet you clearly appear to be benefitting from your existence

No, ****wit. He gets it: existence itself is not a benefit.

How about that, ****wit? I won again. He was leaning toward your
nonsensical belief, although he intuitively knew something was wrong in
it. I explained to him why existence *CANNOT* be a benefit, and he was
convinced. You lost again, ****wit. My record is intact: *NO ONE* has
followed you in your illogical nonsense.

Here's something for you and the Goober to try: Try explaining how the
pre-existence of future livestock animals now, is going to prevent them from
benefitting from their existence when they do exist in the future.

That's already been done, ****wit.


Clearly - without any doubt whatever - he doesn't care about animal
welfare, their well-being. Look carefully at that second one, in which
he says that even if all the animals he ate had terrible lies, he would
just ignore their suffering and go on eating them.

****wit does not care about animal welfare - proved beyond dispute.

On 6/29/2011 3:21 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:13:16 +0100, wrote:

dh@ seems to think that animals
benefit from being born to be used for meat

Some do and some do not.

*NO* animals benefit from being born.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:13:16 +0100, tidbit wrote:

dh@ seems to think that animals
benefit from being born to be used for meat

Some do and some do not. Can you get that far? Goo can't.