On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>>into existence
>>>>
>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>>>
>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are suggesting.
>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful in
>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we might
>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
>>>significance.
>>
>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for the
>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
>> I keep pointing out.
>>
>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>>
>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>
>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,

The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.

>not any inherent value.

What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
value" than those of others?

>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies to
>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>>
>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>
>Saying that doesn't make it true.

That's true, and I only point it out because it is.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:58:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, the Goober wrote:
>>>
>>>>when you blabber about "giving consideration
>>>>to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
>>>>to exist".
>>>
>>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
>>> trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?
>>
>>The potential animals that you say ARAs selfishly
>>want to deny life to.
>
> Do you think it means all of "them"?

To an ARA it does, and that's who we're talking about

> Since you know
> I'm opposed to battery cages, it would be extra stupid
> of you to think that.

You want to deny life to battery hens. I knew that.

> But then anything beyond such
> stupidity involves details, and we know you instantly
> become a vegetable as soon as any details need to
> be considered...like now for example.

OK, are there any other animals that you want to deny life to besides caged
laying hens?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>>>into existence
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>>>>
>>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are
>>>>suggesting.
>>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful in
>>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we
>>>>might
>>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
>>>>significance.
>>>
>>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for the
>>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
>>> I keep pointing out.
>>>
>>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>>>
>>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>>
>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>
> The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
> to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
> human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
> idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
> fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
> horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
> care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
> you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
> in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
> When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
> considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
> you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.

Livestock species only have value according to our wants,

>
>>not any inherent value.
>
> What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
> value" than those of others?

They are natural species which have evolved over eons intertwined within the
symbiosis of a complex ecosystem, not some engineered special meat
subspecies that has never interacted within the wild environment. Therefore
the entire meaning of that species relates to us, as the creators and users
of that product.


>>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies to
>>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>>>
>>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
>>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
>>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
>>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>>
>>Saying that doesn't make it true.
>
> That's true, and I only point it out because it is.

It's false, obviously, just look around, nobody is considering "what the
animals get out of it" except from the AW perspective.

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:58:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, the Goober wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> when you blabber about "giving consideration
>>>>> to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
>>>>> to exist".
>>>>
>>>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
>>>> trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?
>>>
>>> The potential animals that you say ARAs selfishly
>>> want to deny life to.
>>
>> Do you think it means all of "them"?
>
> To an ARA it does, and that's who we're talking about
>
>> Since you know
>> I'm opposed to battery cages, it would be extra stupid
>> of you to think that.
>
> You want to deny life to battery hens. I knew that.

****wit is the most arrogant and egotistical poster
around, except possibly for rupie. ****wit isn't
*really* looking at anything from the perspective of
the animals; he's substituting his own judgment
regarding what he "thinks" is a "decent life" for
livestock.

In this regard, he is no different from any other
"ara", except that they think no livestock lives are
worth living, and he thinks some are. ****wit can't
give any plausible reason why his judgment is correct
and theirs are wrong.

****wit is an "ara", just a very weird one.


>> But then anything beyond such
>> stupidity involves details, and we know you instantly
>> become a vegetable as soon as any details need to
>> be considered...like now for example.
>
> OK, are there any other animals that you want to deny life to besides
> caged laying hens?
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:26:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:58:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, the Goober wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> when you blabber about "giving consideration
>>>>>> to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
>>>>>> to exist".
>>>>>
>>>>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
>>>>> trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?
>>>>
>>>> The potential animals that you say ARAs selfishly
>>>> want to deny life to.
>>>
>>> Do you think it means all of "them"?
>>
>> To an ARA it does, and that's who we're talking about
>>
>>> Since you know
>>> I'm opposed to battery cages, it would be extra stupid
>>> of you to think that.
>>
>> You want to deny life to battery hens. I knew that.
>
>****wit is the most arrogant and egotistical poster
>around,

That would be you Goo, and in fact that is exactly
why you are Goobernicus.

>except possibly for rupie. ****wit isn't
>*really* looking at anything from the perspective of
>the animals; he's substituting his own judgment
>regarding what he "thinks" is a "decent life" for
>livestock.
>
>In this regard, he is no different from any other
>"ara", except that they think no livestock lives are
>worth living,

Which is exactly the way you think too, Goo. You
and "they" are one.

>and he thinks some are. ****wit can't
>give any plausible reason why his judgment is correct
>and theirs are wrong.

The lives of livestock should be given as much
consideration as the lives of anything else Goo, and
none of you can give any good reason why they
should not be.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:19:54 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:58:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, the Goober wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>when you blabber about "giving consideration
>>>>>to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
>>>>>to exist".
>>>>
>>>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
>>>> trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?
>>>
>>>The potential animals that you say ARAs selfishly
>>>want to deny life to.
>>
>> Do you think it means all of "them"?
>
>To an ARA it does, and that's who we're talking about
>
>> Since you know
>> I'm opposed to battery cages, it would be extra stupid
>> of you to think that.
>
>You want to deny life to battery hens. I knew that.

Good.

>> But then anything beyond such
>> stupidity involves details, and we know you instantly
>> become a vegetable as soon as any details need to
>> be considered...like now for example.
>
>OK, are there any other animals that you want to deny life to besides caged
>laying hens?

Fighting dogs. Bulls for bullfights. Any other animals
who would be neglected and/or kept in overly restrictive
conditions. Then there are animals I wouldn't want to see
in particular places, like: I wouldn't want to have wolves
in my own neighborhood, but it wouldn't bother me a bit
if they were in yours.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:24:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>>>>into existence
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>>>>>
>>>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are
>>>>>suggesting.
>>>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful in
>>>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we
>>>>>might
>>>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
>>>>>significance.
>>>>
>>>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for the
>>>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
>>>> I keep pointing out.
>>>>
>>>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>>>>
>>>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>>>
>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>
>> The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
>> to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
>> human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
>> idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
>> fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
>> horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
>> care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
>> you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
>> in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
>> When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
>> considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
>> you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.
>
>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>
>>
>>>not any inherent value.
>>
>> What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
>> value" than those of others?
>
>They are natural species which have evolved over eons intertwined within the
>symbiosis of a complex ecosystem, not some engineered special meat
>subspecies that has never interacted within the wild environment.

They still have an impact on the environment. I consider it to be at least
an acceptable one, while you advocates of the misnomer necessarily can not.

>Therefore
>the entire meaning of that species relates to us, as the creators and users
>of that product.

It also relates to the wildlife it relates to, and of course relates even more
to the livestock animals themselves.

>>>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>>>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies to
>>>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>>>>
>>>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
>>>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
>>>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
>>>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>>>
>>>Saying that doesn't make it true.
>>
>> That's true, and I only point it out because it is.
>
>It's false, obviously, just look around, nobody is considering "what the
>animals get out of it" except from the AW perspective.

Even if everybody else if failing in that way, it doesn't mean
I have to join in the failure.

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,
and would be similar to thinking you don't want to learn to read
and write because you want to be able to carry on a conversation.
Even though it's a completely ignorant and also stupid way of
thinking many people still believe it, but just as with your own
that doesn't mean I have to join you/them in it. In fact since I've
learned of the stupidity and why it's stupid, I *could not* join
you/them.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:24:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>>>>>into existence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are
>>>>>>suggesting.
>>>>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we
>>>>>>might
>>>>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
>>>>>>significance.
>>>>>
>>>>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for the
>>>>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
>>>>> I keep pointing out.
>>>>>
>>>>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>>>>
>>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>>
>>> The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
>>> to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
>>> human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
>>> idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
>>> fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
>>> horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
>>> care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
>>> you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
>>> in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
>>> When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
>>> considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
>>> you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.
>>
>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>
>>>
>>>>not any inherent value.
>>>
>>> What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
>>> value" than those of others?
>>
>>They are natural species which have evolved over eons intertwined within
>>the
>>symbiosis of a complex ecosystem, not some engineered special meat
>>subspecies that has never interacted within the wild environment.
>
> They still have an impact on the environment. I consider it to be at
> least
> an acceptable one, while you advocates of the misnomer necessarily can
> not.

Stop talking in riddles.

>>Therefore
>>the entire meaning of that species relates to us, as the creators and
>>users
>>of that product.
>
> It also relates to the wildlife it relates to, and of course relates
> even more
> to the livestock animals themselves.

More meaningless nonsense
>
>>>>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>>>>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>>>>>
>>>>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
>>>>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
>>>>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
>>>>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>>>>
>>>>Saying that doesn't make it true.
>>>
>>> That's true, and I only point it out because it is.
>>
>>It's false, obviously, just look around, nobody is considering "what the
>>animals get out of it" except from the AW perspective.
>
> Even if everybody else if failing in that way, it doesn't mean
> I have to join in the failure.

It's not failure.

>
> 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,
> and would be similar to thinking you don't want to learn to read
> and write because you want to be able to carry on a conversation.
> Even though it's a completely ignorant and also stupid way of
> thinking many people still believe it, but just as with your own
> that doesn't mean I have to join you/them in it. In fact since I've
> learned of the stupidity and why it's stupid, I *could not* join
> you/them.

wtf are you babbling about?

****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead
chicken, lied:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:26:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >Dutch wrote:
> >> ****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead chicken, lied:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:58:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>> ****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead chicken, lied:
> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>> when you blabber about "giving consideration
> >>>>>> to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
> >>>>>> to exist".
>
> >>>>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
> >>>>> trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?
>
> >>>> The potential animals that you say ARAs selfishly
> >>>> want to deny life to.
>
> >>> Do you think it means all of "them"?
>
> >> To an ARA it does, and that's who we're talking about
>
> >>> Since you know
> >>> I'm opposed to battery cages, it would be extra stupid
> >>> of you to think that.
>
> >> You want to deny life to battery hens. I knew that.
>
> >****wit is the most arrogant and egotistical poster
> >around,
>
> That would be you Rudy,

No, that *is* you, ****wit.



> >except possibly for rupie. ****wit isn't
> >*really* looking at anything from the perspective of
> >the animals; he's substituting his own judgment
> >regarding what he "thinks" is a "decent life" for
> >livestock.
>
> >In this regard, he is no different from any other
> >"ara", except that they think no livestock lives are
> >worth living,
>
> Which is exactly the way you think too, Rudy.

No, ****wit - you know that's false.

But thanks for admitting that you are no different in principle from
"aras". I've been saying that for years, ****wit, but it's nice to
hear you admit it.


> >and he thinks some are. ****wit can't
> >give any plausible reason why his judgment is correct
> >and theirs are wrong.
>
> The lives of livestock should be given as much
> consideration as the lives of anything else Rudy, and

What you *mean*, ****wit, by "give their lives consideration", is that
you think livestock "ought" to be born and "get to experience life".
And as we have shown, ****wit, that is absurd.

****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead
chicken, lied:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:19:54 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead chicken, lied:
> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:58:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead chicken, lied:
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>when you blabber about "giving consideration
> >>>>>to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
> >>>>>to exist".
>
> >>>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
> >>>> trying to refer to Rudy, have you any idea?
>
> >>>The potential animals that you say ARAs selfishly
> >>>want to deny life to.
>
> >> Do you think it means all of "them"?
>
> >To an ARA it does, and that's who we're talking about
>
> >> Since you know
> >> I'm opposed to battery cages, it would be extra stupid
> >> of you to think that.
>
> >You want to deny life to battery hens. I knew that.
>
> Good.
>
> >> But then anything beyond such
> >> stupidity involves details, and we know you instantly
> >> become a vegetable as soon as any details need to
> >> be considered...like now for example.
>
> >OK, are there any other animals that you want to deny life to besides caged
> >laying hens?
>
> Fighting dogs. Bulls for bullfights.

That's a lie.

****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead
chicken, lied:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:24:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead chicken, lied:
> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead chicken, lied:
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead chicken, lied:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>[..]
>
> >>>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
> >>>>>>>into existence
>
> >>>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
> >>>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>
> >>>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are
> >>>>>suggesting.
> >>>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful in
> >>>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we
> >>>>>might
> >>>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
> >>>>>significance.
>
> >>>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for the
> >>>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
> >>>> I keep pointing out.
>
> >>>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>
> >>>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>
> >>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>
> >> The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
> >> to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
> >> human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
> >> idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
> >> fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
> >> horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
> >> care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
> >> you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
> >> in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
> >> When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
> >> considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
> >> you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.
>
> >Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>
> >>>not any inherent value.
>
> >> What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
> >> value" than those of others?
>
> >They are natural species which have evolved over eons intertwined within the
> >symbiosis of a complex ecosystem, not some engineered special meat
> >subspecies that has never interacted within the wild environment.
>
> They still have an impact on the environment.

<snip incoherent blabber>


> >Therefore
> >the entire meaning of that species relates to us, as the creators and users
> >of that product.
>
> It also relates to the wildlife it relates to,

<more incoherent blabber>


> >>>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
> >>>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies to
> >>>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>
> >>>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
> >>>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
> >>>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
> >>>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>
> >>>Saying that doesn't make it true.
>
> >> That's true, and I only point it out because it is.
>
> >It's false, obviously, just look around, nobody is considering "what the
> >animals get out of it" except from the AW perspective.
>
> Even if everybody else if failing in that way, it doesn't mean
> I have to join in the failure.

Your effort is a failure from the get-go, ****wit. The animals don't
"get" anything out of "the arrangement". Coming into existence is not
a benefit, ****wit.


> 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". That's just another bizarre ****wit
David Harrison fabrication.

You're ****ing weird, ****wit.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:11:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:24:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>>>>>>into existence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>>>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are
>>>>>>>suggesting.
>>>>>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we
>>>>>>>might
>>>>>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
>>>>>>>significance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for the
>>>>>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
>>>>>> I keep pointing out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>>>>>
>>>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>>>
>>>> The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
>>>> to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
>>>> human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
>>>> idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
>>>> fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
>>>> horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
>>>> care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
>>>> you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
>>>> in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
>>>> When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
>>>> considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
>>>> you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.
>>>
>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>not any inherent value.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
>>>> value" than those of others?
>>>
>>>They are natural species which have evolved over eons intertwined within
>>>the
>>>symbiosis of a complex ecosystem, not some engineered special meat
>>>subspecies that has never interacted within the wild environment.
>>
>> They still have an impact on the environment. I consider it to be at
>> least
>> an acceptable one, while you advocates of the misnomer necessarily can
>> not.
>
>Stop talking in riddles.

Your poor little mind isn't up to really considering anything apparently.
But humans are having more and more influence on wildlife, and that's
a big part of it. It's way beyond what you can think about as we have
seen by your inability to explain which wildlife you think should exist
instead of livestock, etc. The main point here is the difference between
your way of thinking and most other people's. You believe that the impact
livestock have on the environment is always bad and unacceptable, while
most people feel that it is acceptable.

>>>Therefore
>>>the entire meaning of that species relates to us, as the creators and
>>>users
>>>of that product.
>>
>> It also relates to the wildlife it relates to, and of course relates
>> even more
>> to the livestock animals themselves.
>
>More meaningless nonsense

In the past you have bitched openly about the impact livestock have
on wildlife:

"No it's not "good" ****wit, that livestock dominate the land at the expense
of natural species, not "good" at all." - Dutch

Why is that issue now nothing but "meaningless nonsense" to you,
have you any idea?

>>>>>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>>>>>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
>>>>>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
>>>>>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
>>>>>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Saying that doesn't make it true.
>>>>
>>>> That's true, and I only point it out because it is.
>>>
>>>It's false, obviously, just look around, nobody is considering "what the
>>>animals get out of it" except from the AW perspective.
>>
>> Even if everybody else if failing in that way, it doesn't mean
>> I have to join in the failure.
>
>It's not failure.

You really prove to be clueless over and over again:

"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch

>> 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,
>> and would be similar to thinking you don't want to learn to read
>> and write because you want to be able to carry on a conversation.
>> Even though it's a completely ignorant and also stupid way of
>> thinking many people still believe it, but just as with your own
>> that doesn't mean I have to join you/them in it. In fact since I've
>> learned of the stupidity and why it's stupid, I *could not* join
>> you/them.
>
>wtf are you babbling about?

It means just because someone has complete faith in a
stupid idea that doesn't mean everyone else should accept
it too, ESPECIALLY not people who can see and understand
what's stupid about it.

I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to appreciate
the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
is the most ethically supreme possible approach.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:16:50 -0700, Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:

>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:26:35 GMT, Goo wrote:

>> >they think no livestock lives are worth living,
>>
>> Which is exactly the way you think too, Goobs.
>
>No

Then explain which livestock lives you think are worth
living and why Goob, or it will be just another example of
you being caught making absurd claims you can't support.
We KNOW you don't believe any of their lives are worth
living because of your belief that:

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

If you're now claiming to disagree with yourself about it,
you need to explain how or why you think you do.

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.

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:11:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:24:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:ipub73tpu8crhpe025asc9apm9ib0j26km@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>>>>>>>into existence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>>>>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are
>>>>>>>>suggesting.
>>>>>>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we
>>>>>>>>might
>>>>>>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has
>>>>>>>>biological
>>>>>>>>significance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
>>>>>>> I keep pointing out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>>>>
>>>>> The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
>>>>> to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
>>>>> human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
>>>>> idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
>>>>> fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
>>>>> horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
>>>>> care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
>>>>> you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
>>>>> in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
>>>>> When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
>>>>> considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
>>>>> you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.
>>>>
>>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>not any inherent value.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
>>>>> value" than those of others?
>>>>
>>>>They are natural species which have evolved over eons intertwined within
>>>>the
>>>>symbiosis of a complex ecosystem, not some engineered special meat
>>>>subspecies that has never interacted within the wild environment.
>>>
>>> They still have an impact on the environment. I consider it to be at
>>> least
>>> an acceptable one, while you advocates of the misnomer necessarily can
>>> not.
>>
>>Stop talking in riddles.
>
> Your poor little mind isn't up to really considering anything
> apparently.
> But humans are having more and more influence on wildlife, and that's
> a big part of it. It's way beyond what you can think about as we have
> seen by your inability to explain which wildlife you think should exist
> instead of livestock, etc. The main point here is the difference between
> your way of thinking and most other people's. You believe that the impact
> livestock have on the environment is always bad and unacceptable, while
> most people feel that it is acceptable.
>
>>>>Therefore
>>>>the entire meaning of that species relates to us, as the creators and
>>>>users
>>>>of that product.
>>>
>>> It also relates to the wildlife it relates to, and of course relates
>>> even more
>>> to the livestock animals themselves.
>>
>>More meaningless nonsense
>
> In the past you have bitched openly about the impact livestock have
> on wildlife:
>
> "No it's not "good" ****wit, that livestock dominate the land at the
> expense
> of natural species, not "good" at all." - Dutch
>
> Why is that issue now nothing but "meaningless nonsense" to you,
> have you any idea?
>
>>>>>>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>>>>>>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
>>>>>>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
>>>>>>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
>>>>>>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Saying that doesn't make it true.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true, and I only point it out because it is.
>>>>
>>>>It's false, obviously, just look around, nobody is considering "what the
>>>>animals get out of it" except from the AW perspective.
>>>
>>> Even if everybody else if failing in that way, it doesn't mean
>>> I have to join in the failure.
>>
>>It's not failure.
>
> You really prove to be clueless over and over again:
>
> "What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
> "consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch
>
>>> 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,
>>> and would be similar to thinking you don't want to learn to read
>>> and write because you want to be able to carry on a conversation.
>>> Even though it's a completely ignorant and also stupid way of
>>> thinking many people still believe it, but just as with your own
>>> that doesn't mean I have to join you/them in it. In fact since I've
>>> learned of the stupidity and why it's stupid, I *could not* join
>>> you/them.
>>
>>wtf are you babbling about?
>
> It means just because someone has complete faith in a
> stupid idea that doesn't mean everyone else should accept
> it too, ESPECIALLY not people who can see and understand
> what's stupid about it.
>
> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to appreciate
> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.


You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
obviously can't deal with my arguments.

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he
can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker],
lied:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker], lied:
>
>>> 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 Rudy there certainly is, especially among club band type
> rock and rollers.

You don't play, and you don't know, you lowlife roadie
gofer.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:11:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:24:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:ipub73tpu8crhpe025asc9apm9ib0j26km@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>>>>>>>>into existence
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>>>>>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are
>>>>>>>>>suggesting.
>>>>>>>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we
>>>>>>>>>might
>>>>>>>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has
>>>>>>>>>biological
>>>>>>>>>significance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
>>>>>>>> I keep pointing out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
>>>>>> to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
>>>>>> human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
>>>>>> idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
>>>>>> fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
>>>>>> horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
>>>>>> care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
>>>>>> you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
>>>>>> in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
>>>>>> When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
>>>>>> considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
>>>>>> you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>not any inherent value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
>>>>>> value" than those of others?
>>>>>
>>>>>They are natural species which have evolved over eons intertwined within
>>>>>the
>>>>>symbiosis of a complex ecosystem, not some engineered special meat
>>>>>subspecies that has never interacted within the wild environment.
>>>>
>>>> They still have an impact on the environment. I consider it to be at
>>>> least
>>>> an acceptable one, while you advocates of the misnomer necessarily can
>>>> not.
>>>
>>>Stop talking in riddles.
>>
>> Your poor little mind isn't up to really considering anything
>> apparently.
>> But humans are having more and more influence on wildlife, and that's
>> a big part of it. It's way beyond what you can think about as we have
>> seen by your inability to explain which wildlife you think should exist
>> instead of livestock, etc. The main point here is the difference between
>> your way of thinking and most other people's. You believe that the impact
>> livestock have on the environment is always bad and unacceptable, while
>> most people feel that it is acceptable.
>>
>>>>>Therefore
>>>>>the entire meaning of that species relates to us, as the creators and
>>>>>users
>>>>>of that product.
>>>>
>>>> It also relates to the wildlife it relates to, and of course relates
>>>> even more
>>>> to the livestock animals themselves.
>>>
>>>More meaningless nonsense
>>
>> In the past you have bitched openly about the impact livestock have
>> on wildlife:
>>
>> "No it's not "good" ****wit, that livestock dominate the land at the
>> expense
>> of natural species, not "good" at all." - Dutch
>>
>> Why is that issue now nothing but "meaningless nonsense" to you,
>> have you any idea?
>>
>>>>>>>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>>>>>>>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
>>>>>>>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
>>>>>>>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
>>>>>>>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Saying that doesn't make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, and I only point it out because it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's false, obviously, just look around, nobody is considering "what the
>>>>>animals get out of it" except from the AW perspective.
>>>>
>>>> Even if everybody else if failing in that way, it doesn't mean
>>>> I have to join in the failure.
>>>
>>>It's not failure.
>>
>> You really prove to be clueless over and over again:
>>
>> "What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
>> "consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch
>>
>>>> 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,
>>>> and would be similar to thinking you don't want to learn to read
>>>> and write because you want to be able to carry on a conversation.
>>>> Even though it's a completely ignorant and also stupid way of
>>>> thinking many people still believe it, but just as with your own
>>>> that doesn't mean I have to join you/them in it. In fact since I've
>>>> learned of the stupidity and why it's stupid, I *could not* join
>>>> you/them.
>>>
>>>wtf are you babbling about?
>>
>> It means just because someone has complete faith in a
>> stupid idea that doesn't mean everyone else should accept
>> it too, ESPECIALLY not people who can see and understand
>> what's stupid about it.
>>
>> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to appreciate
>> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
>> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>
>You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>obviously can't deal with my arguments.

That's because your "argument" is based completely on
a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:34:31 GMT, Goo wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he
>can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker],
>lied:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker], lied:
>>
>>>> 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 Goober there certainly is, especially among club band type
>> rock and rollers.
>
>You don't play, and you don't know, you lowlife roadie
>gofer.

I know Goo, while you don't even know what I'm talking about.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> 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.

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he
can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker],
lied:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:34:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he
>> can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker],
>> lied:
>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker who "thinks" he can "appreciate" the life of a dead chicken [snicker], lied:
>>>>> 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 Goober there certainly is, especially among club band type
>>> rock and rollers.
>> You don't play, and you don't know, you lowlife roadie
>> gofer.
>
> I know Rudy, while you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I know exactly what you're talking about, ****wit.
You're talking about the bullshit you believe, utterly
false bullshit. That's what you're talking about, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>>obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>
> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.

That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your LoL
before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to Salt's
excellent essay. So was Jonathan.

Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> 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". You probably
got hooked on this idea when you were justifying your involvement in cock
fighting. Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
the same rationalization could be used for them. The only interesting thing
about your argument is that it is so flawed, so corrupt on so many levels
that it presents an excellent example of an unethical form of reasoning and
how a person can be blinded by it.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:11:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
> >>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:24:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:02:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
> >>>>>>>news:ipub73tpu8crhpe025asc9apm9ib0j26km@4ax .com...
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>[..]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
> >>>>>>>>>>>into existence
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
> >>>>>>>>>> If so, which ones and why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are
> >>>>>>>>>suggesting.
> >>>>>>>>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful
> >>>>>>>>>in
> >>>>>>>>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we
> >>>>>>>>>might
> >>>>>>>>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has
> >>>>>>>>>biological
> >>>>>>>>>significance.
>
> >>>>>>>> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
> >>>>>>>> I keep pointing out.
>
> >>>>>>>>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>
> >>>>>>>> Why only then, but not every other time as well?
>
> >>>>>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>
> >>>>>> The incredible pureness of your selfishness is all that allows you
> >>>>>> to make a statement like that. Anyone who has any interest in
> >>>>>> human influence on animals would be ashamed to let the selfish
> >>>>>> idea enter their thought process. People greatly disturbed by the
> >>>>>> fact that humans raise animals for food--consumed by their own
> >>>>>> horror at the idea--are advocates of the misnomer. You don't
> >>>>>> care about the animals themselves, but only about the horror
> >>>>>> you endure every waking moment of every day, and your faith
> >>>>>> in the misnomer is the only thing that gives you any peace.
> >>>>>> When I point out that there are alternatives which could be
> >>>>>> considered ethically equivalent or superior to the misnomer,
> >>>>>> you are horrified again because it's a threat to your faith. Duh.
>
> >>>>>Livestock species only have value according to our wants,
>
> >>>>>>>not any inherent value.
>
> >>>>>> What do you think gives the lives of some beings more "inherent
> >>>>>> value" than those of others?
>
> >>>>>They are natural species which have evolved over eons intertwined within
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>symbiosis of a complex ecosystem, not some engineered special meat
> >>>>>subspecies that has never interacted within the wild environment.
>
> >>>> They still have an impact on the environment. I consider it to be at
> >>>> least
> >>>> an acceptable one, while you advocates of the misnomer necessarily can
> >>>> not.
>
> >>>Stop talking in riddles.
>
> >> Your poor little mind isn't up to really considering anything
> >> apparently.
> >> But humans are having more and more influence on wildlife, and that's
> >> a big part of it. It's way beyond what you can think about as we have
> >> seen by your inability to explain which wildlife you think should exist
> >> instead of livestock, etc. The main point here is the difference between
> >> your way of thinking and most other people's. You believe that the impact
> >> livestock have on the environment is always bad and unacceptable, while
> >> most people feel that it is acceptable.
>
> >>>>>Therefore
> >>>>>the entire meaning of that species relates to us, as the creators and
> >>>>>users
> >>>>>of that product.
>
> >>>> It also relates to the wildlife it relates to, and of course relates
> >>>> even more
> >>>> to the livestock animals themselves.
>
> >>>More meaningless nonsense
>
> >> In the past you have bitched openly about the impact livestock have
> >> on wildlife:
>
> >> "No it's not "good" ****wit, that livestock dominate the land at the
> >> expense
> >> of natural species, not "good" at all." - Dutch
>
> >> Why is that issue now nothing but "meaningless nonsense" to you,
> >> have you any idea?
>
> >>>>>>>>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
> >>>>>>>>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies
> >>>>>>>>>to
> >>>>>>>>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>
> >>>>>>>> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
> >>>>>>>> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
> >>>>>>>> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
> >>>>>>>> because it's the most significant part of it.
>
> >>>>>>>Saying that doesn't make it true.
>
> >>>>>> That's true, and I only point it out because it is.
>
> >>>>>It's false, obviously, just look around, nobody is considering "what the
> >>>>>animals get out of it" except from the AW perspective.
>
> >>>> Even if everybody else if failing in that way, it doesn't mean
> >>>> I have to join in the failure.
>
> >>>It's not failure.
>
> >> You really prove to be clueless over and over again:
>
> >> "What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
> >> "consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch
>
> >>>> 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,
> >>>> and would be similar to thinking you don't want to learn to read
> >>>> and write because you want to be able to carry on a conversation.
> >>>> Even though it's a completely ignorant and also stupid way of
> >>>> thinking many people still believe it, but just as with your own
> >>>> that doesn't mean I have to join you/them in it. In fact since I've
> >>>> learned of the stupidity and why it's stupid, I *could not* join
> >>>> you/them.
>
> >>>wtf are you babbling about?
>
> >> It means just because someone has complete faith in a
> >> stupid idea that doesn't mean everyone else should accept
> >> it too, ESPECIALLY not people who can see and understand
> >> what's stupid about it.
>
> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to appreciate
> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>
> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>
> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
> a fantasy

No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic. Your
"argument" is based on irrational belief in superstition and bullshit.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:22:02 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched cracker, lied:
>
> >>>> 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,

No, not once. But you have lied every time you post, ****wit.


> and quoted from an imaginary talking
> pig,

No, ****wit. There is no imaginary talking pig, as you well know.
Rather, Salt wrote an allegory in which he used the literary device of
a "talking pig" to debunk the invalid "logic of the larder". It was a
very effective use of allegory, too.

The illogic of the larder is plain for all to see, ****wit. Animals
do not "benefit" by coming into existence.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>dh once again explained:
>> "Dutch" wrote:
>> >dh pointed out:

>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to appreciate
>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>
>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>
>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>> a fantasy
>
>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.

I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:34:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>>You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>>>obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>
>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.
>
>That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your LoL
>before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to Salt's
>excellent essay.

You would have to present some example(s) of that before I could
believe you, meaning almost certainly that I will never be able to.

>So was Jonathan.
>
>Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?

It's up to you to provide evidence that I lied, so get busy trying.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, the Goober boasted:

>dh pointed out:

>> Goo wrote:
>>
>>> dh pointed out
:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, the Goober amusingly thought:
>>>>
>>>>> dh explained:
>>>>>> 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 Goober there certainly is, especially among club band type
>>>> rock and rollers.

>>> You don't play, and you don't know, you lowlife roadie
>>> gofer.
>>
>> I know Goonicus, while you don't even know what I'm talking about.
>
>I know exactly what you're talking about

Prove it by trying to explain then, Goo. When you can't,
you will have again proven that you're a liar.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> 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 probably got hooked on this idea when you were justifying your
>involvement in cock fighting.

I learned to understand it by thinking through why I destroyed
eggs which would have hatched into chicks I didn't want to raise,
instead of letting them hatch and experience life for a while--the
best part of life for chickens--instead.

>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.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Goo claimed:

>Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.

Try explaining why you think that, Goob.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, superior Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>
>>>>> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>>>> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to appreciate
>>>>> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
>>>>> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>> You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>>>> obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>> a fantasy
>> No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>
> I challenge either of you to present "them"

We have done so dozens of times, ****wit, and each
time, you have been beaten and have conceded defeat.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
cracker, lied:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, superior Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>
>>> superior Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, superior Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>>>>>>> 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 Rudy there certainly is,

No, goober ****wit, there is not.


>>>>> especially among club band type
>>>>> rock and rollers.
>
>>>> You don't play, and you don't know, you lowlife roadie
>>>> gofer.
>>> I know Rudy,

You do not, you ignorant cracker. You don't know anything.


>> I know exactly what you're talking about
>
> Prove it by trying to explain then, Rudy.

I have explained satisfactorily hundreds of times,
Goober ****wit David Harrison, that you are an
ignorant, lying cracker who doesn't know what he's
talking about on anything. It is so.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, superior Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence.
>
> Try explaining why you think that, Rudy.

****wit - you goober - I have done much better than
that, dozens of times. I have explained why it *must*
be so. Go back and read them, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>dh once again explained:
>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>> >dh pointed out:
>
>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>> >> appreciate
>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>
>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
>>> >you
>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>
>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>> a fantasy
>>
>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>
> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.


Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you utter
them.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:34:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>>>>obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>
>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.
>>
>>That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your
>>LoL
>>before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to Salt's
>>excellent essay.
>
> You would have to present some example(s) of that before I could
> believe you, meaning almost certainly that I will never be able to.
>
>>So was Jonathan.
>>
>>Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?
>
> It's up to you to provide evidence that I lied, so get busy trying.


Assuming I went to the trouble of digging up that evidence, what good would
it do? You would just weasel around it like you do everything else. No
thanks.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
cracker, lied:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:34:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, liedö
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>> You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>>>> obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.
>> That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your LoL
>> before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to Salt's
>> excellent essay.
>
> You would have to present some example(s) of that before I could
> believe you,

You've been reading and responding to them for years,
****wit. Everyone knows that Dutch and I, among
others, have successfully refuted your illogic of the
larder many times.



>> So was Rudy.
>>
>> Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?
>
> It's up to you to provide evidence that I lied

You lied when you said we hadn't refuted your illogic
of the larder bullshit. We have, and everyone -
including you - know it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> 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. In fact that false belief hinders your
ability to consider their suffering objectively, since you feel that they
start with a benefit.

>>You probably got hooked on this idea when you were justifying your
>>involvement in cock fighting.
>
> I learned to understand it by thinking through why I destroyed
> eggs which would have hatched into chicks I didn't want to raise,
> instead of letting them hatch and experience life for a while--the
> best part of life for chickens--instead.

Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens. 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. That argument is derived directly from your statements.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:53:02 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:34:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:22:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>>>>>obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>
>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>> a fantasy written by a founder of the misnomer.
>>>
>>>That's an obvious lie and you know it. I was successfully refuting your
>>>LoL
>>>before I knew it had a name, years before Derek posted the link to Salt's
>>>excellent essay.
>>
>> You would have to present some example(s) of that before I could
>> believe you, meaning almost certainly that I will never be able to.
>>
>>>So was Jonathan.
>>>
>>>Why do you think that you can get away with posting obvious lies?
>>
>> It's up to you to provide evidence that I lied, so get busy trying.
>
>
>Assuming I went to the trouble of digging up that evidence, what good would
>it do?

For you it would provide evidence that you're not lying.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:50:08 GMT, Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Goo wrote:
>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>>>> Bagoo wrote:
>>>>> dh pointed out:
>>
>>>>>> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>>>> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>>>> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>>>>> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>>>> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to appreciate
>>>>>> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
>>>>>> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>>>> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>> You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs, you
>>>>> obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>> a fantasy
>>> No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>
>> I challenge either of you to present "them", Goobs.
>
>We have

I challenge either of you to present "them", Goobs.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:33:47 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, the Goober claimed:
>>>dh once again explained:
>>>> "Dutch" wrote:
>>>> >dh pointed out:
>>
>>>> >> I can see and understand the pureness of your selfishness
>>>> >> in regards to livestock, but I don't have to join you in it
>>>> >> ESPECIALLY because I can recognise it for what it is. I certainly
>>>> >> do NOT want to join you in it, and doubt that I possibly could
>>>> >> even if I did want to at this point. After having learned to
>>>> >> appreciate
>>>> >> the fact that many livestock have lives of positive value, I don't
>>>> >> believe I could possibly ever develop your faith that veganism
>>>> >> is the most ethically supreme possible approach.
>>>>
>>>> >You may as well go talk to someone who actually holds those beliefs,
>>>> >you
>>>> >obviously can't deal with my arguments.
>>>>
>>>> That's because your "argument" is based completely on
>>>> a fantasy
>>>
>>>No, ****wit. His argument is based on facts and logic.
>>
>> I challenge either of you to present "them" Goobs.
>
>
>Your challenges, like your quizzes, are worthless tripe, because you utter
>them.

I challenge either of you to present "them", Bagoo.