dh@. wrote:
> 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,

He doesn't and you know it.

> 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.

The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain
probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they
also thank you for eating the grain?
>
> >"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.