On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:00:44 GMT, Boo wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
dh@. wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in
messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No,

Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature,
one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to
care
about them is UTILITY.

As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

That's a lie
. . .
I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
of organic beef I occasionally consume.

LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to
your
position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is
an
obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments
is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly
get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it.


It wasn't an assumption, it was a directive. It is true however that it was
largely rhetorical, I know he can't or won't do it.

The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock. The "it" you're completely incapable of is providing
a decent reason why anyone would, other than to support
the elimination objective. You suck so bad at this that you
openly support consideration for the lives of mice, at the same
time that you oppose consideration for the lives of cattle.