dh@. wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>>
>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>>"no life".
>>>
>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>>>that or no life.
>>
>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have
>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont.
>>
>>Agree?
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
>>>improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
>>>understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."
>>
>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you
>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not the
>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no modifiers,
>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both.
>
>
> It is the life they get or no life,

Not coming into existence at all is meaningless. You
keep stupidly insisting that people "ought" to
contribute to "decent lives for farm animals" INSTEAD
OF "no life at all", and that's just a stupid thing to
say. You stupidly believe that causing animals to
live, per se, is better than not wanting any farm
animals to live, and you CANNOT SAY WHY.

Your bullshit about "decent" lives is a laughable
smokescreen; a stupid attempt at a dodge. No matter
how thinly you try to slice your shit, it's still shit.
You CANNOT SAY WHY it is "better" to cause animals to
live than not to do so; you just keep STUPIDLY
insisting that it is.


>>You're mixing
>>dichotomies.
>
>
> You're still mixed up

He isn't mixed up at all.