A cat forum. CatBanter

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 » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat community
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's in pet food?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old June 29th 11, 11:33 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

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

On 28/06/2011 21:21, Goo 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 whether the
conception of your zygote was a benefit to you or not. What you need to do,
because Goo never could, is explain WHAT about your pre-existence you believe is
preventing you from benefitting from the existence you clearly appear to be
benefitting from now, and HOW you think it's preventing you. If you can never do
that, as Goo and his boy have not been able to do, then we'll be left with you
appearing to benefit and no reason to believe you're not benefitting. The same
is true for the billions of other creatures who appear to be benefitting, as
well as the billions who appear to have benefitted in the past. Goo and "Dutch"
both still appear to be benefitting, regardless of anything to do with their
pre-existence.

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. Go:

.. . .
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.


You certainly claim to do that Goo:

"I eat meat." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an
animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing
at all" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
  #62  
Old June 29th 11, 11:34 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:50:46 +0100, tidbit wrote:

On 29/06/2011 18:24, Goo wrote:

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


a.animal.ethics.vegetarian. I picked it up in r.pets.dogs.health and
followed it to there where Rudy Canoza usually posts from. I subscribed
to it just over a week ago. dh@ usually posts from there too.


"Rudy" and "George" are both Goo. In case you were unaware, Goo has
pretended to be all of the following "different" people 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

Rudy Canoza
Trappist

Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra
S. Maizlich
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
George Plimpton
Chrissy Degeer
Mauricio Rodriguez, Nihada Tutic and Tim Goss
Pete Crayne, Dare Adelekan, Cathy Demkiw, and about 16 others
  #63  
Old June 30th 11, 01:26 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

****wit David Harrison spammed:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:50:46 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 18:24, George Plimpton wrote:

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


a.animal.ethics.vegetarian. I picked it up in r.pets.dogs.health and
followed it to there where Rudy Canoza usually posts from. I subscribed
to it just over a week ago. dh@ usually posts from there too.


[****wit spam]


Coming into existence is not a benefit, ****wit.

  #64  
Old June 30th 11, 09:14 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

On 6/30/2011 2:46 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:24:04 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:34, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:50:46 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 18:24, Goo wrote:

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

a.animal.ethics.vegetarian. I picked it up in r.pets.dogs.health and
followed it to there where Rudy Canoza usually posts from. I subscribed
to it just over a week ago. dh@ usually posts from there too.

"Rudy" and "George" are both


You. You are the OP who started this thread under the name Rudy Canoza.
I've just checked the headers.


It was an inside "joke" directed at George, not something intended to confuse
people like yourself.


Bull****, ****wit. You were trying to mislead.
  #65  
Old June 30th 11, 09:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

On 6/30/2011 2:56 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:33, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:52:51 +0100, wrote:

On 28/06/2011 21:21, Goo 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 whether the
conception of your zygote was a benefit to you or not.


I do benefit from my existence


That's only true if you would benefit just as well if you did not exist.


He does not benefit from his existence, as he has clearly seen.


from the advantages I was given while
growing up.


You benefitted from your existence then too


Nope - he clearly understands, ****wit, that existence itself is *NEVER*
a benefit.


I didn't benefit from starting to exist because I had no
welfare before


Even though you only seem able to appreciate that you benefitted while you
were growing up


He understands full well that existence is *never* a benefit, ****wit -
it cannot be for reasons that everyone understands. It is the things
that occur once existence is established that may or may not be benefits
- *never* existence itself.


then to gain anything.

What you need to do,
because Goo never could, is explain WHAT about your pre-existence you believe is
preventing you from benefitting from the existence you clearly appear to be
benefitting from now, and HOW you think it's preventing you.


There is nothing about my pre-existence to prevent me benefiting from my
existence now


So you are benefitting from your existence


No, he isn't - he has said he isn't benefiting from his existence
itself. He isn't.


because I didn't have a pre-existence to benefit from in
the first place. Do you believe in pre-existence?


I don't have a belief as to whether or not we experience multiple lives, but


You believe in pre-existence - you are a religious nutcake.


If you can never do
that, as Goo and his boy have not been able to do, then we'll be left with you
appearing to benefit and no reason to believe you're not benefitting.


You still appear to be benefitting


Nope - no one benefits from existence itself.


The same
is true for the billions of other creatures who appear to be benefitting, as
well as the billions who appear to have benefitted in the past. Goo and "Dutch"
both still appear to be benefitting, regardless of anything to do with their
pre-existence.

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. Go:

. . .
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.

You certainly claim to do that

"I eat meat."

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an
animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing
at all"

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths"

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives"

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it."


Nonsense.


George believes it...or at least claims to believe it.


I believe all of them. They're all true. Existence is not a benefit -
it is a condition for benefits to be received, but it is not a benefit
itself.
  #66  
Old June 30th 11, 10:46 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:24:04 +0100, tidbit wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:34, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:50:46 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 18:24, Goo wrote:

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

a.animal.ethics.vegetarian. I picked it up in r.pets.dogs.health and
followed it to there where Rudy Canoza usually posts from. I subscribed
to it just over a week ago. dh@ usually posts from there too.


"Rudy" and "George" are both


You. You are the OP who started this thread under the name Rudy Canoza.
I've just checked the headers.


It was an inside "joke" directed at Goo, not something intended to confuse
people like yourself.

Goo this - - - Goo that. How silly.


I showed you the partial list of dozens of different people Goo has
pretended to be, often more than one at a time praising and congratulating
himselves. Since I'm not going to flatter him by referring to him as dozens of
different people, one name needed to be developed with which to refer to the one
individual who dishonestly was pretending to be many. That name is Goobernicus.
Goo etc for short.
  #67  
Old June 30th 11, 10:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, tidbit wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:33, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:52:51 +0100, wrote:

On 28/06/2011 21:21, Goo 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 whether the
conception of your zygote was a benefit to you or not.


I do benefit from my existence


That's only true if you would benefit just as well if you did not exist.

from the advantages I was given while
growing up.


You benefitted from your existence then too, even if it makes you
uncomfortable for some odd reason, and even if your zygote didn't litterally
benefit from the act of conception. LOL...would you feel comfortable explaining
to people that you don't believe you benefit from your existence because you
don't believe your zygote benefitted from the act of its own conception?

I didn't benefit from starting to exist because I had no
welfare before


Even though you only seem able to appreciate that you benefitted while you
were growing up IF you can appreciate that much, you still appear to be
benefitting. Whether you actually are still benefitting or not, you need to
explain what it is about BEFORE that prevents you from benefitting now. Explain:

then to gain anything.

What you need to do,
because Goo never could, is explain WHAT about your pre-existence you believe is
preventing you from benefitting from the existence you clearly appear to be
benefitting from now, and HOW you think it's preventing you.


There is nothing about my pre-existence to prevent me benefiting from my
existence now


So you are benefitting from your existence as you clearly appear to be, and
nothing about your pre-existence is preventing you from doing so as Goo fooled
you into believing it is.

because I didn't have a pre-existence to benefit from in
the first place. Do you believe in pre-existence?


I don't have a belief as to whether or not we experience multiple lives, but
I consider the possibility that we do. Goo lies to people and tells them I have
a belief, but of course I'd explain why if I did. Regardless of whether we do or
not though billions of beings appear to benefit from lives of positive value.

If you can never do
that, as Goo and his boy have not been able to do, then we'll be left with you
appearing to benefit and no reason to believe you're not benefitting.


You still appear to be benefitting and so do billions of others. Don't let
it bother you though. It's really a good thing :-) It's good that people like
Goo can't make it impossible for any creature to benefit from a life of positive
value, simply by claiming something about pre-existence prevents it. LOL... It's
even more absurd to think no creature has ever benefitted from a life of
positive value, than it is to think no livestock benefit from lives of positive
value, though both ideas are extremely absurd.

The same
is true for the billions of other creatures who appear to be benefitting, as
well as the billions who appear to have benefitted in the past. Goo and "Dutch"
both still appear to be benefitting, regardless of anything to do with their
pre-existence.

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. Go:

. . .
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.


You certainly claim to do that Goo:

"I eat meat." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an
animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing
at all" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo


Nonsense.


Goo believes it...or at least claims to believe it.
  #68  
Old June 30th 11, 10:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:52:50 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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.


"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"

"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
  #69  
Old June 30th 11, 11:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:52:19 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote

It is appreciation for when AW is successful. Actually it's
appreciation for
more than that too, but since you can't even get that far there's no point
telling you about anything else.


It's the LoL


That's just the way you people refer to having appreciation for when AW is
successful. As I pointed out there is more to it than that, but since you can't
even get that far there's no point telling you about anything else. Too bad you
people can't appreciate the fact that in Salt's day there wasn't much AW success
TO appreciate, like there is today.
  #70  
Old July 1st 11, 12:14 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

On 6/30/2011 3:36 PM, tidbit wrote:
On 30/06/2011 22:56, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:57:18 +0100, wrote:

On 29/06/2011 23:33, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:52:51 +0100, wrote:

On 28/06/2011 21:21, Goo 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 whether
the
conception of your zygote was a benefit to you or not.

I do benefit from my existence


That's only true if you would benefit just as well if you did not exist.

What on earth *are* you getting at? Why do you talk such nonsense when
you *must* surely understand by now after 12 years how only living
experiential things can receive a benefit?

from the advantages I was given while
growing up.


You benefitted from your existence then too, even if it makes you
uncomfortable for some odd reason, and even if your zygote didn't
litterally
benefit from the act of conception. LOL...would you feel comfortable
explaining
to people that you don't believe you benefit from your existence
because you
don't believe your zygote benefitted from the act of its own conception?

A zygote can't benefit by starting to exist either. It has to exist
before it can receive a benefit.


Zygotes can't benefit at all, even when they exist, because they do not
have an experiential existence. It has no nervous system, no brain, no
welfare - no means of experiencing anything.

Tidbit, it is anyone's guess where ****wit even learned the word zygote,
but apart maybe from looking it up in Wikipedia, he has no idea what one
is, nor what its attributes are. He never took even a high school
biology course, and he has no formal education beyond high school. In
high school, he took vocational courses, not a university preparatory
curriculum.
 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kitten food for an 8 month old cat or switch to adult food? mike Cat health & behaviour 3 June 1st 09 12:12 AM
Cat food brands--Science Diet = cat equivalent of rich folk buyingtheir people food at Whole Foods and other boutique grocery stores? mike Cat health & behaviour 9 April 22nd 09 02:05 PM
Making dry food look/smell/taste like wet food Ray Ban Cat health & behaviour 20 October 30th 03 12:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 PM.


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