On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"larrylook" > wrote
>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>
>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>> opposition to
>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>> products.
>>
>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>> repugnant.
>
>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,

You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you think
it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.

>it's aesthetics, so what
>else is new?

It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
animals by being vegan or by eating meat. All they can do is contribute
to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it deliberately.

People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock. People
can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the same
time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of vegetable
products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.

Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:

Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food to
raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
Message-ID: >

Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.

"This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and
what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher? Revered moralist, he
might plead, fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and tomorrow
but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine
intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me,
thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray
thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If,
then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."

Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.

Spare all of us, ****wit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
At one time he pretended to understand that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
obviously did.