On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:25:44 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:26:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>>>>> called "animal rights talk.doc" he
>>>> Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?
>>>>
>>> He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that
>>> opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I
>>> attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's
>>> suggestion. I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia.
>>
>> You're lying Booger. You and Goo are admittedly incapable
>> of giving ANY consideration to any other creatures
>
>Consideration that entails thinking that the very lives of livestock are
>a rationalization for consuming meat is circular sophistry and thus
>invalid. Get it yet?

I do get it. Considering the animals' lives suggests that decent
animal welfare could be an ethically equivalent or superior approach
to the elimination objective. Since you obviously don't want people
to think about that, you dishonestly pretend that it's not the very
significant aspect of human influence on animals that it is. Amusingly,
you have never even tried to provide a reason why anyone should
consider your selfish inconsideration to be ethically superior to having
consideration, which indicates that you yourself don't have any clue.
It all gets back to your stupid talking pig...I point out that some livestock
have lives of positive value...you insist that no one should think about
that or they will lose imaginary moral points of various imaginary types
....I ask how that could be the case...you desperately refer back to
an imaginary talking pig "Hear that ****wit? The pig says" because
your pig hero referred to consideration of his life as "sophistry".
Referring to it as such is a form of lie, since considering the animals'
lives is a necessary part of considering whether or not a practice
is cruel TO THE ANIMALS.