On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><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:
>>>>
>>>>>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.

Some animals benefit from human influence, even though you people
can't appreciate how.

>>>>>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,

It's good for people like me who can understand the fact,
but not for those of you who can't of course.

>so no more Logic of the Larder then?

How do you figure that, you poor fool?

>> 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?

You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior
for you to refuse to consider the lives of any animals. So far
all a person can do is wonder why you feel you are ethically
superior, and why you've been displaying such idiotic behavior
for all these years.