"collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:33:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:01:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>If an argument is self-serving and circular then it should
>>>>been seen as suspect and discarded.
>>>
>>> It should be examimed to see if that aspect of the situation in any
>>> way reduces the quality of life for animals.
>>
>>It is instantly apparent that it has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>> And the only time that
>>> CONSIDERATION OF THE ANIMALS reduces the quality of their
>>> lives, is when there's not enough of it.
>>
>>"Consideration" in this context has no bearing on the quality of their
>>lives.
>
> Consideration for the animals' lives encourages decent AW, which
> works against "ar", which is why you "aras" are opposed to it. Duh.
Equivocation on the word "life".
|