<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:43:48 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:icgt73dahu8hrov2m65nhnpbfl956fgmt6@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:kgcl731mr5ct8gmkjmtmar9u6um8ku4v5b@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Duh Bagoo.
>>
>>I don't know what that means. You said that it's necessary to consider the
>>animals, I showed that it isn't.
>>
>>That ought to be the end of our conversation, finally.
>
> If you ever showed anything at all, you have only shown why
> advocates of the misnomer can't consider the animals. Since I
> feel strongly the opposite way, what you may have shown doesn't
> have the significance for me that it has for you...to the point that
> I can't even tell which part(s) of your crap you think you're trying
> to refer to. Try providing some example(s):
>
> . . .
>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>
>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>> this point.
>>
>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>
> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.

You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism.
In short, bull-crap.

>
>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>
>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>
>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal experiences
>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>outweighs
>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing dog
>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>otherwise had.
>>>
>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>> that
>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that you
>>> could never appreciate.
>>
>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe
>>ALL
>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>
> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>
>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>
> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.

Good, so no more Logic of the Larder then?

> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.


Feel better now ****wit?

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

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>>
>>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>>> this point.
>>>
>>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>>
>> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
>> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
>> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
>> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
>> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.
>
>You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism.
>In short, bull-crap.

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

>>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal experiences
>>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>>outweighs
>>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing dog
>>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>>otherwise had.
>>>>
>>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>>> that
>>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that you
>>>> could never appreciate.
>>>
>>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe
>>>ALL
>>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>>
>> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>>
>>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>>
>> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
>
>Good,

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

>so no more Logic of the Larder then?

How do you figure that, you poor fool?

>> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
>> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
>> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
>> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
>> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
>> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
>> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
>> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
>> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.
>
>Feel better now ****wit?

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

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>>>> this point.
>>>>
>>>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>>>
>>> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
>>> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
>>> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
>>> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
>>> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.
>>
>>You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate
>>sophism.
>>In short, bull-crap.
>
> Some animals benefit from human influence, even though you people
> can't appreciate how.

The Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism. In short,
bull-crap.

>
>>>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal
>>>>>>experiences
>>>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>>>outweighs
>>>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing
>>>>>>dog
>>>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>>>otherwise had.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>>>> that
>>>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that
>>>>> you
>>>>> could never appreciate.
>>>>
>>>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe
>>>>ALL
>>>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>>>
>>> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>>>
>>>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>>>
>>> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
>>
>>Good,
>
> It's good for people like me who can understand the fact,
> but not for those of you who can't of course.
>
>>so no more Logic of the Larder then?
>
> How do you figure that

If your thinking is just like vegans except for a matter of degree then you
can no longer criticze them for their failure to provide life for livestock.

>
>>> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
>>> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
>>> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
>>> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
>>> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
>>> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
>>> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
>>> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
>>> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.
>>
>>Feel better now ****wit?
>
> You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior
> for you to refuse to consider the lives of any animals. So far
> all a person can do is wonder why you feel you are ethically
> superior, and why you've been displaying such idiotic behavior
> for all these years.

I do consider their lives, I just don't make their lives a moral bargaining
chip as the LoL does.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:51:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>>>>> this point.
>>>>>
>>>>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>>>>
>>>> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
>>>> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
>>>> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
>>>> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
>>>> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.
>>>
>>>You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate
>>>sophism.
>>>In short, bull-crap.
>>
>> Some animals benefit from human influence, even though you people
>> can't appreciate how.
>
>The Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism. In short,
>bull-crap.

That's a lie.

>>>>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal
>>>>>>>experiences
>>>>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>>>>outweighs
>>>>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing
>>>>>>>dog
>>>>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>>>>otherwise had.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> could never appreciate.
>>>>>
>>>>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they believe
>>>>>ALL
>>>>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>>>>
>>>>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
>>>
>>>Good,
>>
>> It's good for people like me who can understand the fact,
>> but not for those of you who can't of course.
>>
>>>so no more Logic of the Larder then?
>>
>> How do you figure that
>
>If your thinking is just like vegans except for a matter of degree

It's not.

>then you
>can no longer criticze them for their failure to provide life for livestock.

When have I done so?

>>>> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
>>>> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
>>>> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry for
>>>> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
>>>> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
>>>> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
>>>> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
>>>> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
>>>> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.
>>>
>>>Feel better now ****wit?
>>
>> You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior
>> for you to refuse to consider the lives of any animals. So far
>> all a person can do is wonder why you feel you are ethically
>> superior, and why you've been displaying such idiotic behavior
>> for all these years.
>
>I do consider their lives, I just don't make their lives a moral bargaining
>chip

Yes you do. You feel that denying consideration of their lives
gives you a bigger pile of "moral bargaining chips " than you
would have if you did consider them. The fact that you believe
it is obvious, but so is the fact that you can't explain WHY you
think it does. Since you can't explain WHY you think it does,
all anyone else can do is wonder along with you WHY you feel
that way. You can't explain it because you don't understand it
....you just know you believe it because a "talking pig" told you so.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:51:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:13:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:21:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:44ai83p1flh1emm4vr6ami2234di7dabpm@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:01:59 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Viable fertilized eggs are already defacto chickens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not when they aren't incubated. You can't move beyond
>>>>>>> this point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have not moved beyond the thinking of a pre-school child.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have provided a detail, which your reaction proves confounds
>>>>> and bewilders you as I knew it would, and as I correctly pointed out
>>>>> when I presented it by pointing out that you can't move beyond this
>>>>> point. Actually you can't even get *to* this point, and you probably
>>>>> don't have any idea what I was telling you about.
>>>>
>>>>You have provided the Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate
>>>>sophism.
>>>>In short, bull-crap.
>>>
>>> Some animals benefit from human influence, even though you people
>>> can't appreciate how.
>>
>>The Logic of the Larder, illogical, illegitimate sophism. In short,
>>bull-crap.
>
> That's a lie.

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

>>>>>>>>You aren't giving them life, they already have it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yet you claim to oppose dog fighting and bull fighting even though
>>>>>>>>>>the same rationalization could be used for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not by me. Try it if you think you can do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The argument would be that the positive life that the animal
>>>>>>>>experiences
>>>>>>>>outside the ring, which accounts for 99.9% of the time, more than
>>>>>>>>outweighs
>>>>>>>>whatever suffering he may undergo in the ring. Therefore by opposing
>>>>>>>>dog
>>>>>>>>fighting a person is cheating dogs out of the lives they could have
>>>>>>>>otherwise had.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lives that I consider to be overly restrictive among other things
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> give them a negative value. It's different for chickens in ways that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> could never appreciate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How is that way of thinking different than a vegan, except they
>>>>>>believe
>>>>>>ALL
>>>>>>livestock have lives of negative value?
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! That IS the difference, you poor bumbling clown.
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not, it's only a matter of degree.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that there IS "a matter of degree" IS the difference.
>>>>
>>>>Good,
>>>
>>> It's good for people like me who can understand the fact,
>>> but not for those of you who can't of course.
>>>
>>>>so no more Logic of the Larder then?
>>>
>>> How do you figure that
>>
>>If your thinking is just like vegans except for a matter of degree
>
> It's not.

You just said the opposite right above.

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

When have you not?

>>>>> You can't even understand the significance of things that you
>>>>> yourself point out, you poor, poor, ignorant fool. It would have
>>>>> to suck to be like you. It's times like this I really do feel sorry
>>>>> for
>>>>> you, you poor mixed up mess. Obviously you were screwed up
>>>>> from the start. Then the Goober got hold of you taking advantage
>>>>> of your horribly challenged mental situation, and he successfuly
>>>>> got you to love and respect the very person who lured you into
>>>>> an even deeper mire of bewildered confusion. It's interesting...
>>>>> it's amusing...but above all it's unethical and pathetic.
>>>>
>>>>Feel better now ****wit?
>>>
>>> You still need to explain why you think it's ethically superior
>>> for you to refuse to consider the lives of any animals. So far
>>> all a person can do is wonder why you feel you are ethically
>>> superior, and why you've been displaying such idiotic behavior
>>> for all these years.
>>
>>I do consider their lives, I just don't make their lives a moral
>>bargaining
>>chip
>
> Yes you do.

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