On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh pointed out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's a similar example: It's a fairly common false belief for
>>>>>>>> someone to think they should not learn to read music, because
>>>>>>>> they want to be able to play by ear. It's a completely stupid idea,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's also complete bullshit on your part, you ****ing cracker. There
>>>>>>>is no such "common false belief".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes Goo there certainly is, especially among club band type
>>>>>> rock and rollers. I was around people who held that belief
>>>>>> for a number of years, and then got away from them into an
>>>>>> environment with people who were not so ignorant. In fact I
>>>>>> was away from such ignorance for long enough that I began
>>>>>> to wonder if I had had the wrong impression. Then things
>>>>>> changed, and I began working with that level of musician
>>>>>> again for a few years, and again there was that type of
>>>>>> "thinking".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the same thing here Goober. You who have faith in
>>>>>> the misnomer believe a number of ignorant things but that
>>>>>> doesn't mean I have to join in your beliefs, especially since
>>>>>> you can't even explain them yourself. If you want to try explaining
>>>>>> the most basic of your absurdities--which we know you can't
>>>>>> Goo--then try explaining which rights for which animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He and I both have been very patient in articulating clearly why your
>>>>>argument is flawed, it's you who has doggedly refused to listen.
>>>>
>>>> You have lied to me, and quoted from an imaginary talking
>>>> pig, and that's all. You can't expect that to change what I've
>>>> learned conflicts with your fantasy.
>>>
>>>
>>>You were wedged into this irrational argument long before Salt's essay
>>>came
>>>up. You think that you can and must justify consuming animal products by
>>>taking credit for the fact that livestock "experience life".
>>
>> I understand that it's necessary to consider the animals, in order to
>> get any idea whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans to raise
>> them for food. You don't understand that, but I do.
>
>You misunderstand everything. It's not necessary to believe that animals
>benefit by being born in order to understand that they can suffer harm by
>suffering pain or deprivation.

Duh Bagoo.

>In fact that false belief hinders your
>ability to consider their suffering objectively, since you feel that they
>start with a benefit.

There's no way you could understand how I feel about that.
Are you really unaware that you've spent several years trying to
prevent anyone from thinking about how I do feel about it?

>>>You probably got hooked on this idea when you were justifying your
>>>involvement in cock fighting.
>>
>> I learned to understand it by thinking through why I destroyed
>> eggs which would have hatched into chicks I didn't want to raise,
>> instead of letting them hatch and experience life for a while--the
>> best part of life for chickens--instead.
>
>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.

Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
this point.

>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>
>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>
>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>
>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal experiences
>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than outweighs
>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing dog
>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>otherwise had.

Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things that
give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that you
could never appreciate.