View Single Post
  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

****wit David Harrison stupid cheeselog wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:52:10 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison stupid cheeselog wrote
> >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:46:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>****wit David Harrison stupid cheeselog 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.


Yes, I suppose. If some idiot redneck chicken****er thinks there is
some moral imperative that there "ought" to be farm animals, then he
should eat meat. If he doesn't think there is such an imperative, then
he can eat meat or not.

> 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.


NO, ****wit. Not "instead of nothing". The choice is not "eggs from
free range hens" or "no life for hens". There are two choices:
whether or not to eat eggs at all; what kind of eggs to eat.


> Why else
> would people do it? I don't know, and so far no one has told me.


Most people don't like to engage with you, ****wit. You're an annoying
asshole.


> 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.


Presumably you do it - I'm not persuaded you really do it at all -
because IF there are hens laying eggs, you want the hens to have a
better welfare. But no sensible person is going to eat eggs in the
first place in order to ensure that chickens exist. ONLY YOU would
think of doing that, ****wit.


> >>>
> >>>"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.


He isn't insisting on any selfishness, ****wit. He's insisting on
common sense. Your ****wittery is absurd. You are deliberately mixing
up the decision to eat eggs with the decision about the source of the
eggs IF you decide to eat them at all. That's just ****witted,
****wit.

You are choosing to eat eggs in the first place because you WANT
chickens to exist, for some ****ed up reason. No one else approaches
the choice of whether or not to eat eggs with that criterion in mind.
You insist they should, and EVERYONE, "vegan" and omnivore alike, tells
you you're a full-of-shit ****wit. You are.

>
> >>>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.


YOU are the self-serving one here, ****wit. It is not "for the
chickens" that you eat eggs, but "for ****wit": YOU get some kind of
pleasure out of knowing there are chickens. You stupidly, ****wittedly
think you are doing some kind of "good deed" to chickens by causing
them to exist, and you are not.

>
> >I challenge the faulty logic
> >and hypocrisy of those who use sophistry, lies or false arguments to

try to
> >take away those rights.

>
> Again


AGAIN, ****wit: your belief that you are doing the chickens some kind
of good deed is silly, easily discarded sophistry.

>
> >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

He is attacking you for your stupid sophistry, ****wit.

You've lost.