<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>
>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>> "ought to occur"?
>>
>>
>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination
>>of
>>livestock?
>
> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.


You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help the
animals?

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>>
>>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>>> "ought to occur"?
>>>
>>>
>>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination
>>>of
>>>livestock?
>>
>> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
>> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
>> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.
>
>
>You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help the
>animals?

Which animals? How?

On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>><dh@.> wrote
> >>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>
> >>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
> >>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
> >>>> "ought to occur"?
>
> >>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination
> >>>of
> >>>livestock?
>
> >> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> >> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> >> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.
>
> >You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help the
> >animals?
>
> Which animals?

THESE animals, ****wit - the non-existent, imaginary ones you
irrationally obsess over:

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
****wit - 07/30/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 01/08/2002

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>>>
>>>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>>>> "ought to occur"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the
>>>>elimination
>>>>of
>>>>livestock?
>>>
>>> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
>>> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
>>> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.
>>
>>
>>You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help
>>the
>>animals?
>
> Which animals? How?

Answer the question. Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
How does that help the animals? This is the same question you are posing to
vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>>>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>>>>> "ought to occur"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the
>>>>>elimination
>>>>>of
>>>>>livestock?
>>>>
>>>> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
>>>> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
>>>> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help
>>>the
>>>animals?
>>
>> Which animals? How?
>
>Answer the question.

How could I answer the question when you can't even tell
me what you think you're trying to ask? "Doesn't that help"
WHICH? "the animals"?

>Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?

Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.

>How does that help the animals?

WHICH "the animals" do you think you're trying to talk about???

>This is the same question you are posing to
>vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.

They aren't helping any animals at all, which is the point. So
far it appears that "the animals" you think you're trying to ask
me about are imaginary, which puts "them" in the same
category as "the animals" who benefit from the "help" "they"
get from vegans, meaning that this is yet another case of you
being bewildered and confused.

Cage free farming provides many hens with decent lives of
positive value, but it does nothing to "help" caged hens in any
way. Its value is in providing decent lives for *different* hens,
not in providing "help" for hens who are already in cages. Even
if a cage filled house is converted to cage free, the hens who
were in the cages would not benefit from it...*different* hens
would benefit. The farmers would wait until the caged hens
were ready to be replaced, and would make the conversion
when the house was empty after they had been sent off to
slaughter. The change to cage free would benefit many
thousands of different hens in the future, but not any hens
who had been raised in the cages.

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he
can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker],
lied:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker], lied:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker], lied:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker], lied:
>>>>>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>>>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>>>>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>>>>>> "ought to occur"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the
>>>>>> elimination
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> livestock?
>>>>> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
>>>>> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
>>>>> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.
>>>>
>>>> You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help
>>>> the
>>>> animals?
>>> Which animals? How?
>> Answer the question.
>
> How could I answer the question

You're trying to be cute, ****wit, and as with
everything else you try, you fail. Answer the
question, ****wit.


>
>> Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
>
> Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
> I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
> and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
> would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.

No more than your belief that fighting cocks and
fighting dogs "benefit" by coming into existence, ****wit.


>> How does that help the animals?
>
> WHICH "the animals" do you think you're trying to talk about???

ANY animals, ****wit: *you* believe that coming into
existence is a "benefit" per se, and so by advocating
that certain animals not be bred, you are advocating
the withholding of this imaginary "benefit", based
entirely on *your* tastes.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>
>>Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
>
> Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
> I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
> and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
> would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.

But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of animals.
You still advocate the elimination of battery hens for precisely the same
reason that ARAs advocate the elimination of other forms of livestock,
because they believe that the conditions are overly-restrictive and the
suffering, in their opinion, is excessive.

>>How does that help the animals?
>
> WHICH "the animals" do you think you're trying to talk about???
>
>>This is the same question you are posing to
>>vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.
>
> They aren't helping any animals at all, which is the point.

THEY are employing exactly the same kind of thinking as you, except that
they draw the line in a different place. The fact that they are not
recommending replacing the livestock they want to see eliminated with other
forms of livestock is completely irrelevant. There is no moral imperative
for anyone to cause livestock to exist. Your accusation that they are
somehow doing something inconsiderate or fundamentally different than you do
when you advocate the elimination of battery hens is absurd.

<snip diversion>

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>
>>>Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
>>
>> Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
>> I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
>> and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
>> would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.
>
>But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of animals.

Yes, one which I would rather see not exist, along with dogs
and bulls used for fighting.

>You still advocate the elimination of battery hens for precisely the same
>reason that ARAs advocate the elimination of other forms of livestock,
>because they believe that the conditions are overly-restrictive and the
>suffering, in their opinion, is excessive.

You agree with them completely. I believe some of their lives
are of positive value, and some are not.

> >>How does that help the animals?
>>
>> WHICH "the animals" do you think you're trying to talk about???
>>
>>>This is the same question you are posing to
>>>vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.
>>
>> They aren't helping any animals at all, which is the point.
>
>THEY are employing exactly the same kind of thinking as you, except that
>they draw the line in a different place.

You draw it at the same place they do, insisting as they do
that no livestock animals' lives should be given positive consideration.

>The fact that they are not
>recommending replacing the livestock they want to see eliminated with other
>forms of livestock is completely irrelevant.

No it's not, it's just that none of you can explain WHICH wildlife
you would supposedly provide life for instead of livestock, much
less WHY anyone would agree to do it, as we have gone over
dozens of times by now.

>There is no moral imperative
>for anyone to cause livestock to exist. Your accusation that they are
>somehow doing something inconsiderate or fundamentally different than you do
>when you advocate the elimination of battery hens is absurd.

That's a lie. In complete contrast to your lie, and unlike you
advocates of the misnomer, I can say which animals I believe
should replace others, and also why I feel that way.

<dh@.> wrote

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>
>>>>Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
>>>
>>> Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
>>> I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
>>> and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
>>> would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.
>>
>>But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of
>>animals.
>
> Yes, one which I would rather see not exist, along with dogs
> and bulls used for fighting.

Fine, I agree. Animals that are going to be subjected to inhumane treatment
should never be brought into existence. That is the same way vegans think,
except they think that all commercial farming is inhumane. I don't happen to
agree with them, neither do you. Where you and I disagree is that you argue
that vegans can be criticized for "denying life" to animals, a logical
absurdity.

>>You still advocate the elimination of battery hens for precisely the same
>>reason that ARAs advocate the elimination of other forms of livestock,
>>because they believe that the conditions are overly-restrictive and the
>>suffering, in their opinion, is excessive.
>
> You agree with them completely.

Um, no, I obviously don't. If I did I would be a vegan, I'm not, I am a meat
eater. I just returned from shopping, among other things I bought an organic
chicken breast, some free range organic ground beef for meatloaf and some
wild sockeye salmon steaks.

> I believe some of their lives
> are of positive value, and some are not.

That's not unreasonable, but only meaningful inasmuchas you prove it *and*
take precautions to consume only the products from the former group. As a
general statement it's empty rhetoric.


>
>> >>How does that help the animals?
>>>
>>> WHICH "the animals" do you think you're trying to talk about???
>>>
>>>>This is the same question you are posing to
>>>>vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.
>>>
>>> They aren't helping any animals at all, which is the point.
>>
>>THEY are employing exactly the same kind of thinking as you, except that
>>they draw the line in a different place.
>
> You draw it at the same place they do, insisting as they do
> that no livestock animals' lives should be given positive consideration.

There's that weasel-phrase again. "Positive consideration" to you implies
some kind of vague, generalized argument against veganism and for meat
consumption. It's neither. Ethical consumers do not take credit for the
lives of the animals used to produce their products, not vegetarians, not
meat-eaters.

>>The fact that they are not
>>recommending replacing the livestock they want to see eliminated with
>>other
>>forms of livestock is completely irrelevant.
>
> No it's not,

Yes it is.

> it's just that none of you can explain WHICH wildlife
> you would supposedly provide life for instead of livestock, much
> less WHY anyone would agree to do it, as we have gone over
> dozens of times by now.

What makes you think that humans are required to <blech> "provide life" for
wildlife? The only reason we "provide life" for livestock is to produce
products. If we stopped and left the land and resources to wildlife they
would "provide" their own lives.

>>There is no moral imperative
>>for anyone to cause livestock to exist. Your accusation that they are
>>somehow doing something inconsiderate or fundamentally different than you
>>do
>>when you advocate the elimination of battery hens is absurd.
>
> That's a lie.

It's the truth.

> In complete contrast to your lie, and unlike you
> advocates of the misnomer, I can say which animals I believe
> should replace others, and also why I feel that way.

There is no reason to control which animals replace livestock, or to think
that it's any better for there to be free range hens and broilers than wild
grouse and pheasants simply because we <blech> "provide life" for the hens.
On the contrary, the earth would most likely be better off if wild grouse
and pheasants replaced free range hens and broilers, because they are part
of a natural ecosystem. I'm not advocating it, I am merely pointing out that
you can't argue that you serve any greater good by <blech> "providing life"
for domestic hens.

One of these days I hope you wake up and realize that this so-called
argument of yours makes no sense.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:38:49 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:26:11 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>
>>>> Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
>>>
>>> Because I consider battery cages to be overly restrictive AND
>>> I believe that sort of environment encourages a LOT of brutality
>>> and abuse resulting in the suffering of many more birds than
>>> would occur if the birds were kept in open houses.
>>
>> But as you have said yourself, those are a whole different group of animals.
>
> Yes, one which I would rather see not exist, along with dogs
> and bulls used for fighting.

That's a lie. You once wrote that the dogs "at least get to experience
life". There is no difference morally between breeding fighting cocks
and breeding fighting dogs. You justify each of them the same way.


>
>> You still advocate the elimination of battery hens for precisely the same
>> reason that ARAs advocate the elimination of other forms of livestock,
>> because they believe that the conditions are overly-restrictive and the
>> suffering, in their opinion, is excessive.
>
> You agree with them completely.

I don't agree with "aras". You know it.


>>>> This is the same question you are posing to
>>>> vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.
>>>
>>> They aren't helping any animals at all, which is the point.
>>
>> THEY are employing exactly the same kind of thinking as you, except that
>> they draw the line in a different place.
>
> You draw it at the same place they do

No. You know you're lying.


>> The fact that they are not
>> recommending replacing the livestock they want to see eliminated with other
>> forms of livestock is completely irrelevant.
>
> No it's not

It is completely irrelevant.


>> There is no moral imperative
>> for anyone to cause livestock to exist. Your accusation that they are
>> somehow doing something inconsiderate or fundamentally different than you do
>> when you advocate the elimination of battery hens is absurd.
>
> That's a lie.

It's not a lie. But you don't *really* advocate the elimination of
battery hens, because you buy battery-hen eggs, which "provides life"
for them.



--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs