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

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:24:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. 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: