<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
>>>>>>>fact is
>>>>>>>what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been
>>>>>>>pointing
>>>>>>>out
>>>>>>>for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A meaningless one.
>>>>>
>>>>> For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was
>>>>> that
>>>>> would
>>>>> be no reason for you to hate it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
>>>>>>don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?
>>>>>
>>>>> People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.
>>>>
>>>>That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.
>>>>
>>>>"Decent AW" <retch> is promoted over "poor AW"
>>>
>>> It's also promoted over eliminations.
>>
>>By you
>
> LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.

You invented that invalid dichotomy, so, you.

Stop relying on that invalid dichotomy, now. That will be a start, it will
reduce your fallacy count by one.