<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:42:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:30:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On 15 Jan 2006 15:55:57 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Presumably the poster you are replying to would not eat the
>>>>>>products on those grounds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe. It's more certain that he/she would not eat products
>>>>> in order to deliberately contribute to decent lives for animals
>>>>> raised to eat.
>>>>
>>>>I would hope not. Nobody in their right mind thinks like that.
>>>
>>> Some of us do, which is why we buy cage free eggs, and
>>> why growers can profit from making them available.
>>
>>Stop playing games ****wit. People choose to eat free range *instead of*
>>conventionally-produced products because they prefer to support better
>>animal welfare, not because they support animals "getting to experience
>>life". Nobody in their right mind thinks it's better to eat a free-range
>>egg
>>and support a hen "getting to experience life" than to not eat an egg at
>>all.
>
> You just aren't really in favor of decent AW, which I've known for
> years. If you were, you would be in favor of people supporting it even
> if they never eat an egg at all.

Now you're equivocating on the meaning of "support". One may give verbal,
financial or moral support to animal welfare causes, and never consume
animal products.

> You consistently leave me nothing to

I consistently leave you nothing to do but equivocate and dodge the issue of
your floundering position.