On Mon, 4 May 2009 18:07:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 04 May 2009 11:00:16 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:22 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:59:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are anti-considerate.
>>>
>>>There's no such word.
>>
>> LOL. You yourself "are" the personification of that word.
>>All eliminationists are, now that you mention it.
>>
>>>I oppose The Logic of the Larder because
>>
>> It works against the objective to eliminate domestic animals,
>>and that is the ONLY reason you TRY to oppose it. You don't
>>really oppose it, but just continue to repeat the same lie over
>>and over without being able to back it up.
>>
>>>its shabby sophism.
>>
>> LOL! That's the lie I was referring to, which you can't
>>even ATTEMPT to try backing up.
.. . .
>>>> You have shown signs of having gotten a tiny little glimpse
>>>>through your thick selfish shielding, and I kept one or two in
>>>>my notes I believe...:
>>>>
>>>>"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>Those show that even though you're too selfish to give
>>>>them any significance in your supposed thoughts about
>>>>morality, you are aware of the value to the animals.
>>>>And this one:
>>>>
>>>>"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
>>>>I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>shows you're even aware of that aspect of the situation,
>>>>again clearly revealing how selfish you are.
>>
>> How did you get stupid enough to unlearn it? It does
>>seem that you have a brain injury of some sort, so is that
>>what happened? Do you learn and unlearn things in
>>cycles? Do you sometimes unlearn how to read and write,
>>or to tie your shoes? Do you unlearn how to get back home
>>sometimes? Do you ever relearn things you have learned
>>and then unlearned? Is it possible that some day you might
>>relearn how to appreciate the significance of this very significant
>>aspect of the situation? Or having unlearned it, are you now
>>doomed to never being able to relearn it again?
>
>I oppose considering that

Duh Dutch. I've been asking you why anyone should
consider your anti-consideration to be ethically superior for
years and you have NEVER been able to give even one
decent reason. Did you somehow unlearn that too? Do
you unlearn it every time you snip the challenge? I must
have challenged you to try backing it up hundreds of
times by now. Have you unlearned that somehow, every
single time? Hey, here's an idea and a challenge: Try
explaining why anyone should or even could think that
your opposition to considering the animals is ethically
superior to considering them. Go:

>which warrants no consideration.

Considering the animals' lives is a necessary part of
evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans
to raise them for food. What you need to do is explain
why you think it's ethically superior for people to REFUSE
to take that aspect into consideration. GO:

<dh@.> wrote
> Considering the animals' lives is a necessary part of
> evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans
> to raise them for food. What you need to do is explain
> why you think it's ethically superior for people to REFUSE
> to take that aspect into consideration. GO:

If we were evaluating whether or not it was cruel to humans to raise them
for food, would it be necessary to "consider their lives"?

Why or why not?

On Wed, 6 May 2009 23:30:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> Considering the animals' lives is a necessary part of
>> evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans
>> to raise them for food. What you need to do is explain
>> why you think it's ethically superior for people to REFUSE
>> to take that aspect into consideration. GO:
>
>If we were evaluating whether or not it was cruel to humans to raise them
>for food, would it be necessary to "consider their lives"?

Of course it would.

>Why or why not?

Because that's the most significant aspect of trying to
make such an evaluation. That's just the way it is man
and the way it always has been, and there's no way it
could ever change, so there's really no reason for you
to keep trying to fight the fact. If you really can't understand
why then it is because you can only consider it from your
own position without even being able to attempt thinking
about it from the others' pov. That's not just a random
insult, but something you would need to get over in order
to actually become the sort of person you act like you
want to be. But then you'd have to accept the fact that
I've been correct by telling you all this over and over for
years and years, and that I really have been trying to
help you people while you've been insulting me for it,
which happens to be exactly the way it is and has been
all this time...

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 23:30:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>If we were evaluating whether or not it was cruel to humans to raise them
>>for food, would it be necessary to "consider their lives"?
>
> Of course it would.


In that case since a human life is the most profoundly precious gift
imaginable how can we possibly have decided that it is wrong?

You *do* realize that its wrong don't you?

On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:13:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:01:24 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 May 2009 23:30:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> Considering the animals' lives is a necessary part of
>>>> evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans
>>>> to raise them for food. What you need to do is explain
>>>> why you think it's ethically superior for people to REFUSE
>>>> to take that aspect into consideration. GO:
>>>
>>>If we were evaluating whether or not it was cruel to humans to raise them
>>>for food, would it be necessary to "consider their lives"?
>>
>> Of course it would.
>>
>>>Why or why not?
>>
>> Because that's the most significant aspect of trying to
>>make such an evaluation.
>
>In that case since a human life is the most profoundly precious gift
>imaginable how can we possibly have decided that it is wrong?

More because it would work against the interests of
society in general than because of what it would do
to the humans, but the purity of your selfishness won't
allow you to understand how that could be the case.

>You *do* realize that its wrong don't you?

I can consider the whole thing in what few ways
you can and also in ways you can not, that's for sure.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:13:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:01:24 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 6 May 2009 23:30:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> Considering the animals' lives is a necessary part of
>>>>> evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans
>>>>> to raise them for food. What you need to do is explain
>>>>> why you think it's ethically superior for people to REFUSE
>>>>> to take that aspect into consideration. GO:
>>>>
>>>>If we were evaluating whether or not it was cruel to humans to raise
>>>>them
>>>>for food, would it be necessary to "consider their lives"?
>>>
>>> Of course it would.
>>>
>>>>Why or why not?
>>>
>>> Because that's the most significant aspect of trying to
>>>make such an evaluation.
>>
>>In that case since a human life is the most profoundly precious gift
>>imaginable how can we possibly have decided that it is wrong?
>
> More because it would work against the interests of
> society in general than because of what it would do
> to the humans, but the purity of your selfishness won't
> allow you to understand how that could be the case.

Why would it work against the interests of society in general for more
humans to have the experience of life? How selfish and inconsiderate you are
to deny those humans a chance to experience life!


>>You *do* realize that its wrong don't you?
>
> I can consider the whole thing in what few ways
> you can and also in ways you can not, that's for sure.