****wit David Harrison wrote:
> 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"

He isn't an "ara". Neither am I. You already know that.

> hope it never does.

That's right! It's ****witted sophistry.

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