<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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
m...
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:icgt73dahu8hrov2m65nhnpbfl956fgmt6@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:kgcl731mr5ct8gmkjmtmar9u6um8ku4v5b@4a x.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 have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism.
In short, bull-crap.

>
>>>>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.

Good, so no more Logic of the Larder then?

> 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.


Feel better now ****wit?