How cruel is leather?
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
>>>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do,
>>>>> so
>>>>> let's
>>>>> not forget that part.
>>>>
>>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
>>>>lives
>>>of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>>
>>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>>
>>No
>
> Yes.
No, "having appreciation" is meaningless, self-serving lip service. The
proof is evident, you cannot describe even a theoretical animal who ever
benefitted from it.
|