<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:37:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>
>>> I just removed your obsessive concern with your imaginary browny
>>> points because I'm sick as hell of you crying about them all the time.
>>
>>Liar, you removed it because you're a dishonest loser. The brownie points
>>you're referring to are the ones implicit in The Logic of the Larder.
>
> You're only worried about the ones you're afraid of losing for The
> Logic
> of the Vegan.

Does not follow, I don't get any for that, not being a vegan.

>>>>you dishonest piece of shit?
>>>
>>> Oh okay you baby, you can have one browny point, not that you
>>> earned it, but just "take" it or whatever you do with it and from now
>>> on shut the **** up about it.
>>
>>I don't claim ANY brownie points,
>
> You are terrified that people might consider some option(s) to be
> ethically equivalent or superior to "ar" elimination, which would take
> brownie points away from The Logic of the Vegan.

Wrong, I consider The Logic of the Vegan to be ill-conceived and irrational.
I also consider The Logic of the Larder a gross error in judgment and an
utter failure as an argument against veganism.

>>you do. I KNOW that it is inadmissable
>>morally to "consider what the animals get out of it"
>
> No, we sure don't know anything as stupid or inconsiderate as that.
> It's an aspect of the situation that MUST be considered if we're
> considering whether or not it's cruel to animals to raise them for food.

You're equivocating again. Only if we choose to breed and raise them do we
need to consider their welfare. Considering that they get (i.e. we give
them) something by *being born* is illegitimate.