On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>Then why should anyone consider it?
>
>>How does your oppostition to basic consideration benefit
>> any animal or person?
>
>It entertains me to shoot down stupid arguments like yours.
>
>>>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.
>
>"The Logic of The Larder" will never become popular.

It may or may not, but one thing for sure is that you "ARAs" hope
it never does.

>It is transparently
>self-serving sophistry to anyone with the brain power of a 10 year-old.

What do you have to offer that is less self-serving? Answer: nothing.