On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:39:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
> wrote
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>EVERYONE, ****wit. Everyone rejects your ****witted "eat meat so
>>>>>animals will live" ****wittery. EVERYONE, ****wit. You lost.
>>>>
>>>> In order for me to lose, something would have to change so that
>>>> animals no longer experience life because humans raise them for
>>>> food, but I would have to believe that they still exist.
>>>
>>>No, in order for you lose it just has to be irrelevant, and it is.
>>
>> Not yet, because they still exist.
>
>And it's still irrelevant.
>
>> It is relevant,
>
>Nope
>
>> just not relevant
>> to you because you only care about YOU, and don't even have
>> basic consideration for the animals. Not only do you not have
>> basic consideration for the animals, but you don't want anyone
>> else to either.
>
>How does your "basic consideration" benefit any animal or person?

It doesn't. How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit
any animal or person?

>What is
>this "basic consideration" that I am withholding from them? How are they
>harmed by my withholding of it? Does my withholding of this "basic
>consideration" have ANY effect at all on any animal or any human?

No. And it can't either. But if more people develop such consideration
then products which promote decent lives for livestock could very well
become popular, and THAT is exactly what you are really opposed to.