On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
>>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths
>>>
>>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare]
>>
>> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though
>> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years.
>
>I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare,

You do it every time you oppose me, and you do it ESPECIALLY
when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life.

>I oppose your
>"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived
>acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that

*IF!* (retard)

>they

Had a life which was a positive experience.

>"experienced
>life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This
>so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder"

How is it aptly dubbed that? That, like the gross misnomer "ar", just
appear to be extremely obvious in their dishonesty to me, and I feel quite
certain you can never explain how either is a valid name for what it
pretends to represent.

>is two-bit
>sophistry.

That's a lie.

>Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything
>less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only
>even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything.
>Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them,
>we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those
>animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument"
>fails.

You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could
have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less
can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals
or why it should be taken into consideration.