> 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?

This is a critical point.

>>>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.

Nobody likes it, ARAs, anti-ARAs, we all recognize it for the shallow
circular reasoning that it is. It's an embarrassment to the anti-AR
movement.

>>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.

I defend our right to use animals, humanely. I challenge the faulty logic
and hypocrisy of those who use sophistry, lies or false arguments to try to
take away those rights. If I am going to attack vegans and ARAs for those
tactics I can't sit back while someone like you who claims to also be
against AR does it.