On 15 Jan 2006 16:26:01 -0800, "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

He always does, and I know it.

>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?

They were not deliberately provided with life as livestock are.
But if you want to explain why we should eliminate all livestock so
that more wildlife can live, explain exactly which wildlife you are
referring to and why we should do it. So far no one has been able
to explain that, among other things.