On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:37:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:56:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:42:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Who decides?
>>
>> More proof that you're an "ARA" here. The fact that you can't
>> distinguish
>> between whether life has a positive value or not for animals, shows that
>> you
>> agree with "ARAs" that none do.
>>
>>>>>YOU use the concept in all your arguments then when asked to define it
>>>>>that's the best you can do?
>>>>
>>>> It's a question that must be asked, though we agree that asking
>>>> YOU/"ARAs"
>>>> anything about the subject at all is a waste of time, since YOU/"ARAs"
>>>> have no
>>>> clue at all about it.
>>>
>>>I repeat, the onus is on YOU to define what you mean by it. You have never
>>>even tried.
>>
>> I did. You can't understand. I'll simplify it for you, and you still
>> won't
>> understand:
>>
>> If it's not so abusive or overly restrictive conditions that it gives life
>> a
>> negative value, then I believe it has a positive one.
>
>What exactly comprises "abusive or overly restrictive conditions"? We need
>to know exactly what you mean if we are going to attempt to follow your
>suggestions.

At one time didn't you admit that is up to the individual? And that YOU/"ARAs"
feel that life can not be of positive value for any farm animals, regardless of conditions?
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

Please answer a few questions about the line between animals that benefit
and those that don't.
[...]
Who decides where the line is drawn between animals "benefitting" and not
benefitting? Surely the only person who could do it is the individual.
[...]
Vegans have a line, it's at "none".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I believe you did say that, and you do feel that way. That being the case, how could
YOU/"ARAs" possibly understand any situation in which the conditions are decent
enough that life could have a possitive value for farm animals?

>[...]
>>>> I explained my belief about it clearly enough that if it were
>>>> possible
>>>> for you
>>>> to understand the concept, you would be able to understand my belief.
>>>> But
>>>> since YOU/"ARAs" can't comprehend how life could possibly have any value
>>>> for animals raised for food, how could you comprehend how life could
>>>> have
>>>> any
>>>> value for animals raised for food no matter what anyone tells you about
>>>> it?
>>>
>>>That's not the point. No matter how much "value" livestock might derive
>>>from
>>>life in this completely undefined nonsensical position of yours, YOU as a
>>>consumer of meat get NO credit for it.
>>
>> LOL! This is classic. You, who can't even comprehend how life could
>> have positive or negative value for the animal, are trying to tell
>> everybody
>> how to feel about the fact.
>
>I don't need to tell "everybody", "everybody" but you already knows how to
>feel about it.
>
>It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
>right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right? You damn sure can't
feel glad for me if an animal is well-treated, and if you can't feel glad for an
animal if it has a life of positive value, you damn sure can't feel glad for it
about anything else.

>It is crass sophistry to feel pride than an animal someone else raises for
>you to eat "experiences life".

And we can't even feel "glad" if it had a life of positive value, so how
exactly are we permitted by YOU/"ARAs" to feel "glad"???

>>>This is a discussion of human ethics,
>
>> No it's not.
>
>Yes it is.
>
>> It's about human influence on animals, and whether or not
>> particular things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS!

[...]
>I sure can't comprehend how anyone can think like you do, that's for sure.

Well, yes, you have certainly proven you can't consider that farm
animals' lives could ever be of positive value for them, much less conclude
that when they do we should give the fact as much consideration as when
they don't, and/or as their deaths, when we think about human influence
on animals. That shows you are incapable of considering all aspects of
human influence on animals, and are only willing to consider those which
support whatever it is that YOU WANT to believe.

You also can't understand what exactly YOU WANT to believe. Because
at one time you pasted the quote: "The method of husbandry determines
whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal", and then
later reconfirmed the belief:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:34:02 -0800
Message-ID: >

<dh@.> pointed out:

> Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of
> anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's
> possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS?

I've already said that it's possible, in the quote you keep asking me about.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
But later you didn't understand any more--you unlearned that life can have
positive value for some farm animals--most likely after email reprimanding
from Goo. I feel sure he's still laughing....LOL...it is kind of funny...

Anyway, the point is that you can't even understand what you yourself
believe, or even want to believe:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:27:01 -0800
Message-ID: >

some mystical "value to the animals"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It's quite obvious that you're bewildered and confused by an aspect of
the situation your cognitive dissonance prevents you from understanding,
though it appears that you actually might *wish* you could understand it.
Maybe you can overcome...rise out of your tiny little stinking, stagnant pool
of disgusting "analogies" about livestock and child sex slaves, and fantastic
grotesqueries about talking pigs who know of their fate, children eating their
parents, etc... Sadly, and this part isn't funny, probably not though. For some
reason you feel comforted by taking refuge in your little fantasies, while the
mean old truth for some rea$on scares the hell out of YOU/"ARAs":
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

> wrote

> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯