On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> 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
om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:kgcl731mr5ct8gmkjmtmar9u6um8ku4v5b@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>I don't know what that means. You said that it's necessary to consider the
>animals, I showed that it isn't.
>
>That ought to be the end of our conversation, finally.

If you ever showed anything at all, you have only shown why
advocates of the misnomer can't consider the animals. Since I
feel strongly the opposite way, what you may have shown doesn't
have the significance for me that it has for you...to the point that
I can't even tell which part(s) of your crap you think you're trying
to refer to. Try providing some example(s):

.. . .
>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>
>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>> this point.
>
>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.

I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
don't have any idea what I was telling you about.

>>>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.
>
>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe ALL
>livestock have lives of negative value?

LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.

>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.

The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
You can't even understand the significance of things that you
yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.