<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:28:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:27:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:12:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On 1 Sep 2006 08:11:20 -0700, "Andy" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Andy comments:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not interested in rice....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What have you got that dies so I can eat steak ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're looking for death, you'll find more in the
>>>>>>> rice. People get many servings of meat from the
>>>>>>> death of a steer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Steers eat hay, which is a crop, meaning lots of cds, see studies on
>>>>>>vole
>>>>>>populations by Davis et al, also most eat at least some grain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a grass raised steer provides
>>>>>>> 1000 servings of meat, that's pretty much 1/1000
>>>>>>> death per serving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a lie,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fact,
>>>>
>>>>It's a lie.
>>>
>>> How many is it then? Is it more than 3/1000? How many is it
>>> for 1000 servings of rice?
>>
>> I don't know and I'm not claiming to know.
>
> As usual you have no clue what you think you're trying
> to talk about.

As usual I try to avoid making claims that I can't prove.

>>>>> though you "aras" necessarily hate it because it
>>>>> promotes decent AW for cattle instead of their elimination,
>>>>> ie: AR.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not an ARA,
>>>
>>> "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and
>>> killing them." - Dutch
>>>
>>> "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist." - Dutch
>>>
>>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS"." - Dutch
>>>
>>> "I am an animal rights believer." - Dutch
>>
>>Doesn't it strike you as unethical to present quotes as contemporaneous
>>from
>>a time several years ago when you know I presented myself as an animal
>>rights advocate?
>
> You amusingly though contemptibly have no clue what you think
> you're trying to talk about, or how you think you disagree with yourself.

Answer the question. Is it not unethical to represent quotes that your
opponent categorically rejects?

>>Not to mention desperate? You're sounding more like Derek
>>all the time.
>
> LOL! It's not desperate to point out that you have no idea how you
> think you disagree with yourself.

That was another ****wit statement.

>>>>and I hate it because it's a lie.
>>>>
>>>>>> see above. Besides, meat-eaters eat many other types of meat
>>>>>>other than beef.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy mentioned steak.
>>>>
>>>>How convenient, I am mentioning the rest of the livestock,
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Because I like demonstrating what a shallow liar you are.
>
> You have yet to do so, so you again have no clue what
> you think you're trying to talk about.

I do so repeatedly and will continue.

>>>>the other 99% of the animals, who all eat farmed crops.
>>>>
>>>>>>> In contrast to that, there may
>>>>>>> be several deaths involved with a bowl or two
>>>>>>> of rice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can't say that with any certainty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I can.
>>>>
>>>>No you can't. You're just firing blanks.
>>>>
>>>>> You "aras" just can't understand how there could be.
>>
>>I can see how there could be.
>>
>>>>That's not certainty.
>>>
>>> It's certain that there may be.
>>
>>LOL!
>
> Apparently

Apparently you're hopeless.

>>>>>>> On top of that the cattle only live because
>>>>>>> they're raised for food, so eating meat not only
>>>>>>> contributes to death for cattle, it also contributes
>>>>>>> to their lives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The animals killed in crop fields also only live and die because of
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>rich
>>>>>>crops we grow. If you're going to factor in "contributing to lives"
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>commercial crops are better at that than purely grass-fed beef.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I believe plowing, harrowing, planting, treating with *icides
>>>>> and harvesting all reduce the amount of wildlife that can live in an
>>>>> area, I can't believe your claim.
>>>>
>>>>Wildlife like voles, frogs and lizards are prolific. You said yourself
>>>>that
>>>>many more are killed in the production of rice, that means *necessarily*
>>>>that many must also "get to experience life". You can't have it both
>>>>ways.
>>>>If it's a positive that grass-fed cattle "get to experience life" before
>>>>we
>>>>kill them then it must also be a positive that field mice get to
>>>>experience
>>>>life before we kill them too.
>>>
>>> Wildlife get to experience life in pastures too, but in pastures they
>>> aren't killed by plows, harvesters and *icides nearly as often as in
>>> rice
>>> fields. Why do you want people to think they are?
>>
>>I don't,
>
> You do.

I don't, I have no reason to. WIldlife, like livestock, happen to be living
creatures, their lives per se are not relevant to this issue.

>>I want you to see the absurdity of your livestock "getting to
>>experience life" argument.
>
> They do.

So do children of abusive parents "get to experience life", does that factor
into our moral judgment of those parents in any way? No, because a being
"getting to experience life" does not entitle anyone else to a moral
argument. It is simply a "fact of life".

>>>>>>You're no better than an ARA if you're just going to lie too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I don't.
>>>>
>>>>Yes you do. Your whole approach is a sham.
>>>
>>> Why do you want people to think that considering lives of positive
>>> value for livestock "is a sham"?
>>
>>People who have heard the LoL already think it's a sham, and have
>>dismissed
>>it, and you. I am just trying to get the fact through YOUR head.
>
> I'm well aware <snip>

No you're not "well aware" at all, you're utterly blinded by this phony
argument, along with pride and stubborness.