On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:52:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> 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.

It depends on what a person wants. Somewhere along the way
some people made it known that they would pay extra for cage
free eggs. Why would they do it? I do it to contribute to decent
lives for hens, instead of to battery cages or nothing. Why else
would people do it? I don't know, and so far no one has told me.
I damn sure don't do it because it helps me, and I'm not going to
pay extra to help chickens and not allow myself to consider the
chickens. If you're going to claim that you do it, it only makes me
think you're lying. But if you really do it, it would just make you
that much more stupid.

>>>>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.

Of course I feel the same way about the pure selfishness that you not
only suggest, but insist on. That's one major reason I believe you're an
"ARA". What meat consumer would be inconsiderate enough to insist
that it's okay to eat meat, provided we don't consider the lives of the
animals we eat? The Inuits went to the trouble of making their weapons
beautiful in honor of the animals, and on the other extreme we have
you insisting that we don't even acknowledge them. Why would any
meat consumer insist on such selfish inconsideration of the animals
we eat?

>>>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.

Not less self-serving.

>I challenge the faulty logic
>and hypocrisy of those who use sophistry, lies or false arguments to try to
>take away those rights.

Again not less self-serving. As I said, the answser is nothing.
But I'm still interested in seeing it if you can ever come up with
something.

>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.

Maybe you are as stupid as you act, but even after several
years you still haven't convinced me. I can't help but believe
you're an "ARA". From the talking pig, to the crop field animals,
to the child sex slave pigs grotesquery, to the insistance that
meat consumers be totally inconsiderate of the lives of farm
animals, they all SCREAM of "AR".