Dave wrote:
> 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?





Could we have some photographic evidence of this?







> >
> > >"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.