On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:29:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:13:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> I'm not "conceding" a damn thing you idiot. Animals are
>>>> killed, I'm aware of it, I've killed and butchered them myself,
>>>> and unlike you I'm not dishonestly trying to pretend it isn't a
>>>> significant part of the situation.
>>>
>>>We're omnivorous animals, we kill and eat other animals. What "situation"?
>>
>> The situation that animals are raised for food.
>
>The question and the answer are both contained in that short sentence.
>
>What do we do? We raise animals and kill them.
>Why do we do it? For food.
>
>That's it, that's entire whole moral calculation regarding their lives,

Not to people who are not as purely selfish as those who have
faith in the misnomer.

>anything more is sophism.

That's a blatant lie.

>>>>>> It also should continue to be taken into
>>>>>> consideration regardless of any human murders, slaverys, child
>>>>>> abuses, etc. that you use trying to argue against consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Consideration of life" NEVER enters into the discussion when we talk
>>>>>about
>>>>>whether or not we are justified in harming another being. That being's
>>>>>life,
>>>>>no matter how much you "consider" (think about) it, has nothing to do
>>>>>with
>>>>>the question.
>>>>
>>>> The lives of wolves should be taken into consideration as
>>>> well as the lives and deaths they will have influence on within
>>>> the populations of their prey, when considering whether or not to
>>>> re-introduce them to specific areas. Even though you want to
>>>> pretend such things are never considered, I believe they are.
>>>> LOL!!! Actually it's amusing to think about them NOT being taken
>>>> into consideration, and it could only be a misnomer hugger like
>>>> yourself to suggest that they are not.
>>>
>>>None of that has anything to do with The Logic of the Larder.
>>
>> It all has to do with consideration of THE ANIMALS,
>
>Stop equivocating. Thinking the animals' lives provide an excuse to raise
>them is not "consideration".

That's a blatant lie.

>> regardless of how you misnomer addicts like to refer to it.
>> LOL...it is amusing that you want to refer to your elimination
>> objective as "rights", and consideration for other creatures'
>> lives as the LoL.
>>
>>>>>>>The question is, where did you get the idea that you needed an excuse?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't need an excuse to consider their lives. I haven't
>>>>>> eaten any lamb in probably ten years for example, so billions of
>>>>>> sheep have experienced life since the last time I "contributed"
>>>>>> to sheep farming. Actually I never have, since I've never bought
>>>>>> any sheep meat in my life. Even so, I can still appreciate the
>>>>>> fact that sheep experience life because humans raise them for
>>>>>> food. I can, but you people can not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good for you, but it doesn't do anything.
>>>>
>>>> It gives me a better interpretation of the big picture than I
>>>> would get if I couldn't, like you can't.
>>>
>>>What does that "better interpretation of the big picture" that you claim
>>>to
>>>have accomplish?
>>
>> One thing it does is allows me to have some appreciation for
>> livestock animals' positions, while misnomer addicts are capable
>> of none.
>
>And what does this "appreciation" accomplish?

A more realistic interpretation than misnomer addicts, which
apparently means nothing to you/them. Even from deep within Camp
Elimination anyone with a functioning brain should be able to
recognise the fact that filtering out THE ANIMALS THEMSELVES will
NECESSARILY created an unrealistic interpretation of human
influence on animals.

>>>>>It is an empty, circular thought
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to that blatant lie it's a very significant
>>>> aspect of the situation for billions of animals both wild and
>>>> domestic.
>>>
>>>For what specific purpose? And giving you "a better interpretation of the
>>>big picture" is not a useful purpose.
>>
>> Yes it is. Do you really want me to believe you're too stupid
>> to understand why? You may be, but ONLY if you're a misnomer
>> hugger as I have suspected and you have been pathetically denying
>> for years.
>
>What is the purpose?

To be in a position to try to evaluate which things are cruel
to animals and which are not, and WHY! You people think it's all
wrong so you can't make a distinction, but those of us who can
appreciate the animals themselves can also go on to evaluate
which of them we believe have lives of positive value, and which
we believe do not.

>You have no answer

LOL! That's a blatant lie.

>because there is no purpose to it.

The purity of your selfishness prevents you from even
recognising much less being able to appreciate the purpose, as
I've been pointing out to you for years. You CAN NOT have any
appreciation for livestock because it works against the misnomer
you've become addicted to.

>>>>>you are using to make yourself feel better about
>>>>
>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for human to raise them for food.
>>>
>>>Why is it necessary? You keep repeating these phrases and never explain
>>>why
>>>they apply.
>>
>> In order to appreciate it from the animals' positions you
>> must consider the positions they're in.
>
>I know the position they're in.

You don't even care, much less care enough to find out.

>> THAT is what determines
>> whether or not something is cruel to the animals themselves. I've
>> been pointing out for years that the purity of your selfishness
>> won't allow you to actually evaluate whether or not things are
>> cruel TO THEM. That's a fact, not a hollow insult as you may
>> percieve it as being. You are and always have been only able to
>> consider YOUR OWN position, and can't even begin to attempt
>> making a separation and try considering things from a different
>> perspective. You probably honestly can't even comprehend what I'm
>> telling you about, it's so pure...
>
>As always, you're talking nonsense.

It is and always has been the purity with all of you. That's
why you feel so comfortable with lying and your other
dishonesties. It's also why you are comfortable--though you can
NEVER explain how or why--with trying to disagree with yourself
and completely changing your position. You came in claiming to be
a misnomer hugging veg*n, but now amusingly and pathetically you
try pretending to be a meat eater in favor of decent AW. I don't
know if anyone believes you have changed that much, but I know I
certainly don't. You are still a misnomer hugging veg*n, and are
lying about that too now. The only "change" in your life was that
you started lying about it in these ngs.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:29:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:13:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not "conceding" a damn thing you idiot. Animals are
>>>>> killed, I'm aware of it, I've killed and butchered them myself,
>>>>> and unlike you I'm not dishonestly trying to pretend it isn't a
>>>>> significant part of the situation.
>>>>
>>>>We're omnivorous animals, we kill and eat other animals. What
>>>>"situation"?
>>>
>>> The situation that animals are raised for food.
>>
>>The question and the answer are both contained in that short sentence.
>>
>>What do we do? We raise animals and kill them.
>>Why do we do it? For food.
>>
>>That's it, that's entire whole moral calculation regarding their lives,
>
> Not to people who are not as purely selfish as those who have
> faith in the misnomer.

What convoluted nonsense.

>>anything more is sophism.
>
> That's a blatant lie.
>
>>>>>>> It also should continue to be taken into
>>>>>>> consideration regardless of any human murders, slaverys, child
>>>>>>> abuses, etc. that you use trying to argue against consideration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Consideration of life" NEVER enters into the discussion when we talk
>>>>>>about
>>>>>>whether or not we are justified in harming another being. That being's
>>>>>>life,
>>>>>>no matter how much you "consider" (think about) it, has nothing to do
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lives of wolves should be taken into consideration as
>>>>> well as the lives and deaths they will have influence on within
>>>>> the populations of their prey, when considering whether or not to
>>>>> re-introduce them to specific areas. Even though you want to
>>>>> pretend such things are never considered, I believe they are.
>>>>> LOL!!! Actually it's amusing to think about them NOT being taken
>>>>> into consideration, and it could only be a misnomer hugger like
>>>>> yourself to suggest that they are not.
>>>>
>>>>None of that has anything to do with The Logic of the Larder.
>>>
>>> It all has to do with consideration of THE ANIMALS,
>>
>>Stop equivocating. Thinking the animals' lives provide an excuse to raise
>>them is not "consideration".
>
> That's a blatant lie.
>
>>> regardless of how you misnomer addicts like to refer to it.
>>> LOL...it is amusing that you want to refer to your elimination
>>> objective as "rights", and consideration for other creatures'
>>> lives as the LoL.
>>>
>>>>>>>>The question is, where did you get the idea that you needed an
>>>>>>>>excuse?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't need an excuse to consider their lives. I haven't
>>>>>>> eaten any lamb in probably ten years for example, so billions of
>>>>>>> sheep have experienced life since the last time I "contributed"
>>>>>>> to sheep farming. Actually I never have, since I've never bought
>>>>>>> any sheep meat in my life. Even so, I can still appreciate the
>>>>>>> fact that sheep experience life because humans raise them for
>>>>>>> food. I can, but you people can not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good for you, but it doesn't do anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> It gives me a better interpretation of the big picture than I
>>>>> would get if I couldn't, like you can't.
>>>>
>>>>What does that "better interpretation of the big picture" that you claim
>>>>to
>>>>have accomplish?
>>>
>>> One thing it does is allows me to have some appreciation for
>>> livestock animals' positions, while misnomer addicts are capable
>>> of none.
>>
>>And what does this "appreciation" accomplish?
>
> A more realistic interpretation than misnomer addicts, which
> apparently means nothing to you/them. Even from deep within Camp
> Elimination anyone with a functioning brain should be able to
> recognise the fact that filtering out THE ANIMALS THEMSELVES will
> NECESSARILY created an unrealistic interpretation of human
> influence on animals.

Nobody is filtering out "the animals", what we are filtering out is the idea
that the animals' lives constitute an argument for raising them, due to the
circular nature of the argument.

Back to my question, what does the LoL actually **DO**??? I mean some real
positive impact on animals, humans, anything, I'd settle for plants. If I am
being selfish for not embracing it then it must do some good.


>>>>>>It is an empty, circular thought
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast to that blatant lie it's a very significant
>>>>> aspect of the situation for billions of animals both wild and
>>>>> domestic.
>>>>
>>>>For what specific purpose? And giving you "a better interpretation of
>>>>the
>>>>big picture" is not a useful purpose.
>>>
>>> Yes it is. Do you really want me to believe you're too stupid
>>> to understand why? You may be, but ONLY if you're a misnomer
>>> hugger as I have suspected and you have been pathetically denying
>>> for years.
>>
>>What is the purpose?
>
> To be in a position to try to evaluate which things are cruel
> to animals and which are not, and WHY! You people think it's all
> wrong so you can't make a distinction, but those of us who can
> appreciate the animals themselves can also go on to evaluate
> which of them we believe have lives of positive value, and which
> we believe do not.
>
>>You have no answer
>
> LOL! That's a blatant lie.
>
>>because there is no purpose to it.
>
> The purity of your selfishness prevents you from even
> recognising much less being able to appreciate the purpose, as
> I've been pointing out to you for years. You CAN NOT have any
> appreciation for livestock because it works against the misnomer
> you've become addicted to.
>
>>>>>>you are using to make yourself feel better about
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for human to raise them for food.
>>>>
>>>>Why is it necessary? You keep repeating these phrases and never explain
>>>>why
>>>>they apply.
>>>
>>> In order to appreciate it from the animals' positions you
>>> must consider the positions they're in.
>>
>>I know the position they're in.
>
> You don't even care, much less care enough to find out.

What's to find out that will change anything?

>>> THAT is what determines
>>> whether or not something is cruel to the animals themselves. I've
>>> been pointing out for years that the purity of your selfishness
>>> won't allow you to actually evaluate whether or not things are
>>> cruel TO THEM. That's a fact, not a hollow insult as you may
>>> percieve it as being. You are and always have been only able to
>>> consider YOUR OWN position, and can't even begin to attempt
>>> making a separation and try considering things from a different
>>> perspective. You probably honestly can't even comprehend what I'm
>>> telling you about, it's so pure...
>>
>>As always, you're talking nonsense.
>
> It is and always has been the purity with all of you. That's
> why you feel so comfortable with lying and your other
> dishonesties. It's also why you are comfortable--though you can
> NEVER explain how or why--with trying to disagree with yourself
> and completely changing your position. You came in claiming to be
> a misnomer hugging veg*n, but now amusingly and pathetically you
> try pretending to be a meat eater in favor of decent AW. I don't
> know if anyone believes you have changed that much, but I know I
> certainly don't. You are still a misnomer hugging veg*n, and are
> lying about that too now. The only "change" in your life was that
> you started lying about it in these ngs.

Why would I do that? For your benefit? Because if I secretly support AR I
sure have made a lot of anti-AR remarks over the years. And Ball? He's an
ARA too?

You're the only one who believes I am still a vegetarian, and I suspect that
not even you believe it.

You're just terrified to confront the real and compelling arguments that
demolish that lame pet anti-AR theory "LoL" of yours so you invent this
ridiculous strawman that myself, Ball, and others are all closet vegans.

Don't you ever get tired of being a pathetic joke?

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:44:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:29:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> pointed out:
>>>
>>>> I've
>>>> been pointing out for years that the purity of your selfishness
>>>> won't allow you to actually evaluate whether or not things are
>>>> cruel TO THEM. That's a fact, not a hollow insult as you may
>>>> percieve it as being. You are and always have been only able to
>>>> consider YOUR OWN position, and can't even begin to attempt
>>>> making a separation and try considering things from a different
>>>> perspective. You probably honestly can't even comprehend what I'm
>>>> telling you about, it's so pure...
>>>
>>>As always, you're talking nonsense.
>>
>> It is and always has been the purity with all of you. That's
>> why you feel so comfortable with lying and your other
>> dishonesties. It's also why you are comfortable--though you can
>> NEVER explain how or why--with trying to disagree with yourself
>> and completely changing your position. You came in claiming to be
>> a misnomer hugging veg*n, but now amusingly and pathetically you
>> try pretending to be a meat eater in favor of decent AW. I don't
>> know if anyone believes you have changed that much, but I know I
>> certainly don't. You are still a misnomer hugging veg*n, and are
>> lying about that too now. The only "change" in your life was that
>> you started lying about it in these ngs.
>
>Why would I do that?

In the hopes of fooling true misnomer opponents, though I
doubt you've fooled any. You certainly haven't fooled me.

>For your benefit? Because if I secretly support AR I
>sure have made a lot of anti-AR remarks over the years.

I challenge you to present some of your supposed opposition
to the misnomer. I know from having challenged you repeatedly in
the past that you have nothing to present, but again I challenge
you to try presenting some NOW:



>And Ball? He's an ARA too?

Of course I must believe Goo is in favor of the misnomer,
since I have no reason to believe anything else.

>You're the only one who believes I am still a vegetarian, and I suspect that
>not even you believe it.

From my pov: I have MUCH reason to believe you are some sort
of veg*n and have been for years. I have absolutely NO reason at
all to believe you eat meat. I have ONLY reason to believe you
favor the misnomer over decent AW.

>You're just terrified to confront the real and compelling arguments that
>demolish that lame pet anti-AR theory "LoL" of yours

In contrast to that lie: I have challenged you countless
times to present any good reason(s) to be opposed to having
consideration for the animals' lives, and you have NEVER given
ANY good reason(s) at all. In fact most--if not ALL--of what you
have tried to present as reasons have been nothing more than
blatant lies. I can't recall any of them that were not lies, now
that you mention it. If you think you can, you'll need to present
them before I could believe you.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:44:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:29:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> pointed out:
>>>>
>>>>> I've
>>>>> been pointing out for years that the purity of your selfishness
>>>>> won't allow you to actually evaluate whether or not things are
>>>>> cruel TO THEM. That's a fact, not a hollow insult as you may
>>>>> percieve it as being. You are and always have been only able to
>>>>> consider YOUR OWN position, and can't even begin to attempt
>>>>> making a separation and try considering things from a different
>>>>> perspective. You probably honestly can't even comprehend what I'm
>>>>> telling you about, it's so pure...
>>>>
>>>>As always, you're talking nonsense.
>>>
>>> It is and always has been the purity with all of you. That's
>>> why you feel so comfortable with lying and your other
>>> dishonesties. It's also why you are comfortable--though you can
>>> NEVER explain how or why--with trying to disagree with yourself
>>> and completely changing your position. You came in claiming to be
>>> a misnomer hugging veg*n, but now amusingly and pathetically you
>>> try pretending to be a meat eater in favor of decent AW. I don't
>>> know if anyone believes you have changed that much, but I know I
>>> certainly don't. You are still a misnomer hugging veg*n, and are
>>> lying about that too now. The only "change" in your life was that
>>> you started lying about it in these ngs.
>>
>>Why would I do that?
>
> In the hopes of fooling true misnomer opponents, though I
> doubt you've fooled any. You certainly haven't fooled me.

There is nobody else but you proposing this bizarre form of opposition to
AR, so who am I trying to fool?


>>For your benefit? Because if I secretly support AR I
>>sure have made a lot of anti-AR remarks over the years.
>
> I challenge you to present some of your supposed opposition
> to the misnomer. I know from having challenged you repeatedly in
> the past that you have nothing to present, but again I challenge
> you to try presenting some NOW:

Read any of my responses to Rupert, or go back further, to my response to
frlpwr and others. You're willfully blind, and therefore dishonest.

>
>>And Ball? He's an ARA too?
>
> Of course I must believe Goo is in favor of the misnomer,
> since I have no reason to believe anything else.

I rest my case, you are a complete idiot.

[..]