<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:51:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:44ai83p1flh1emm4vr6ami2234di7dabpm@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>The Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism. In short,
>>bull-crap.
>
> That's a lie.

It's the plain unadulterated truth, something with which you have little
aquaintance.

>>>>>>>>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
>>
>>If your thinking is just like vegans except for a matter of degree
>
> It's not.

You just said the opposite right above.

>>then you
>>can no longer criticze them for their failure to provide life for
>>livestock.
>
> When have I done so?

When have you not?

>>>>> 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.
>>
>>I do consider their lives, I just don't make their lives a moral
>>bargaining
>>chip
>
> Yes you do.

Nope, the Logic of the Larder tells YOU that. There is no moral importance
(i.e. bargaining chip) to the fact that animals "get to experience life"
because we raise them for food. None, zero. It's YOU who is making it a
moral issue, YOU.