View Single Post
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-07-2012, 09:12 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
[email protected] dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:05:40 -0700, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:24:08 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:

[email protected] wrote:

I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
elimination objective, Goo.

Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.

There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
are most often of negative value, if any.

So list them.

For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every group
including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of
positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them
appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.
Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,
like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing
crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life
to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of much
greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but
some of us are able to.

blah blah

Those are just more things you people hate to think about because they don't
favor elimination.

Stop lying, you don't believe I favor elimination,

You were honest about the fact that you do when you began posting he

"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
and thrive." - "Dutch"

Later you began to pretend that you changed your pov completely to an AW
position, but I disbelieve you since you argue against appreciation for when
decent AW results in lives of positive value for millions of animals.

nobody does. You're
just use that as a convenient strawman to cover your inability to deal
with the legitimate criticism of your silly arguments.

So far there hasn't been one yet. When I first began posting a dozen years
ago I was afraid there might eventually be, but by this time I've gotten pretty
comfortable with the idea that there won't. However, if you think you have one I
challenge you to present it now. Go: