On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>>>>
>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
>> . . .
>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>
>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>> that it's not?
>>
>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>
>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>
>No, it is not.

Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
lives of positive value. Go:

(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)

>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
>>>whole position rests on.
>>
>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>
>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value or
>worse.

Like what?

<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>> . . .
>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>>
>>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>>> that it's not?
>>>
>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>>
>>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>>
>>No, it is not.
>
> Oh, if that's the case you should explain

I explained right above, can't you read?


>>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>>
>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value or
>>worse.
>
> Like what?

Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of natural
instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.

"Elimination" solves all those issues and does not harm a single animal.

Having said that, for purely selfish reasons I do NOT support elimination.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
>>>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
>>>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
>>>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>>>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
>>>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>>>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
>>>> . . .
>>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>>>
>>>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>>>> that it's not?
>>>>
>>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>>>
>>>No, it is not.
>>
>> Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
>>have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
>>livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
>>lives of positive value. Go:
>>
>>(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
>>for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)
>
>I explained right above

That's a lie so we see that you're sticking with your regular
pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it
appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you
did prove my prediction correct.

>>>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
>>>>>whole position rests on.
>>>>
>>>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>>>
>>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value or
>>>worse.
>>
>> Like what?
>
>Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of natural
>instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.

Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive
value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing
eliminationists would like to see happen.

>"Elimination" solves all those issues

Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing
to lives of positive value. Go:

(correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
>>>>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
>>>>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
>>>>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>>>>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
>>>>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>>>>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>>>>> that it's not?
>>>>>
>>>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>>>>
>>>>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>>>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>>>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not.
>>>
>>> Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
>>>have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
>>>livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
>>>lives of positive value. Go:
>>>
>>>(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
>>>for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)
>>
>>I explained right above
>
> That's a lie

That's a lie, it's right there.

"Elimination makes AW irrelevant, moot, it's not the alternative."

so we see that you're sticking with your regular
> pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it
> appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you
> did prove my prediction correct.
>
>>>>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
>>>>>>whole position rests on.
>>>>>
>>>>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>>>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>>>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>>>>
>>>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value or
>>>>worse.
>>>
>>> Like what?
>>
>>Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of natural
>>instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.
>
> Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive
> value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing
> eliminationists would like to see happen.

Better treatment costs a lot of money, people want cheap. For some it is all
they can afford.

>>"Elimination" solves all those issues
>
> Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing
> to lives of positive value. Go:
>
> (correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)

I already did, it eliminates ALL the animal suffering without harming a
single animal. There is no direct moral downside to the elimination of
livestock as a goal, it would just be very inconvenient.

Your solution (and mine) in practical terms perpetuates a lot of animal
suffering.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:51:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:34:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
>>>>>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
>>>>>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
>>>>>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>>>>>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
>>>>>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>>>>>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>>>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>>>>>> that it's not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>>>>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>>>>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it is not.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
>>>>have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
>>>>livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
>>>>lives of positive value. Go:
>>>>
>>>>(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
>>>>for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)
>>>
>>>I explained right above
>>
>> That's a lie
>
>That's a lie, it's right there.
>
>"Elimination makes AW irrelevant, moot, it's not the alternative."

It is one alternative and of course it IS the opposite of
providing them with decent lives, so as always we see that it's
you who are the liar, lying in an attempt to encourage acceptance
of the misnomer. That's pretty much all I've ever known you to
do, now that you mention it.

>>so we see that you're sticking with your regular
>>pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it
>>appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you
>>did prove my prediction correct.
>>
>>>>>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
>>>>>>>whole position rests on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>>>>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>>>>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value or
>>>>>worse.
>>>>
>>>> Like what?
>>>
>>>Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of natural
>>>instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.
>>
>> Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive
>>value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing
>>eliminationists would like to see happen.
>
>Better treatment costs a lot of money, people want cheap.

I'm convinced it can be worked out for all cases, just as it
has been worked out for many if not most of them already.

>For some it is all
>they can afford.
>
>>>"Elimination" solves all those issues
>>
>> Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing
>>to lives of positive value. Go:
>>
>>(correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)
>
>I already did, it eliminates ALL the animal suffering without harming a
>single animal. There is no direct moral downside to the elimination of
>livestock as a goal, it would just be very inconvenient.
>
>Your solution (and mine) in practical terms perpetuates a lot of animal
>suffering.

I support eliminating the suffering and providing decent
lives of positive value, and consider that to be superior to
complete elimination even after all these years of your supposed
arguments trying to change my mind about it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:51:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:34:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:3ktu96dfovmkb0399ist5j14lmksmogkvn@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
>>>>>>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
>>>>>>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
>>>>>>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>>>>>>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
>>>>>>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>>>>>>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>>>>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>>>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>>>>>>> that it's not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>>>>>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>>>>>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
>>>>>have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
>>>>>livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
>>>>>lives of positive value. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
>>>>>for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)
>>>>
>>>>I explained right above
>>>
>>> That's a lie
>>
>>That's a lie, it's right there.
>>
>>"Elimination makes AW irrelevant, moot, it's not the alternative."
>
> It is one alternative

It is not, that is a deliberately skewed, unbalanced juxtaposition. It's
dishonest.

Having a red car is not the alternative to having no car. The alternative to
having no car is having a car.

Having a red car is the alternative to having a green, blue, black or white
car.

and of course it IS the opposite of
> providing them with decent lives,

It is not, it is the opposite of raising them.

The opposite of providing them with decent lives is providing them with
shitty lives.

> so as always we see that it's
> you who are the liar, lying in an attempt to encourage acceptance
> of the misnomer. That's pretty much all I've ever known you to
> do, now that you mention it.

This strawman has no straw left in it.


>
>>>so we see that you're sticking with your regular
>>>pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it
>>>appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you
>>>did prove my prediction correct.
>>>
>>>>>>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
>>>>>>>>whole position rests on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>>>>>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>>>>>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like what?
>>>>
>>>>Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of
>>>>natural
>>>>instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.
>>>
>>> Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive
>>>value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing
>>>eliminationists would like to see happen.
>>
>>Better treatment costs a lot of money, people want cheap.
>
> I'm convinced it can be worked out for all cases, just as it
> has been worked out for many if not most of them already.

Based on nothing.

>
>>For some it is all
>>they can afford.
>>
>>>>"Elimination" solves all those issues
>>>
>>> Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing
>>>to lives of positive value. Go:
>>>
>>>(correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)
>>
>>I already did, it eliminates ALL the animal suffering without harming a
>>single animal. There is no direct moral downside to the elimination of
>>livestock as a goal, it would just be very inconvenient.
>>
>>Your solution (and mine) in practical terms perpetuates a lot of animal
>>suffering.
>
> I support eliminating the suffering and providing decent
> lives of positive value

That's redundant.

, and consider that to be superior to
> complete elimination

It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never exist
in the first place.

> even after all these years of your supposed
> arguments trying to change my mind about it.

What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to be
born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can be
attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than
sufficient grounds.

On Oct 1, 7:12*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:13o9a6h50moe04f2n72bom15pdnmk7v59t@4ax .com...
> > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:51:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:34:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:3ktu96dfovmkb0399ist5j14lmksmogkvn@4ax. com...
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>
> >>>>>>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>
> >>>>>>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>
> >>>>>>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
> >>>>>>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
> >>>>>>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>
> >>>>>>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
> >>>>>>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>
> >>>>>>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
> >>>>>>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>
> >>>>>>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
> >>>>>>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
> >>>>>>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>
> >>>>>>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
> >>>>>>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
> >>>>>>> . . .
> >>>>>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
> >>>>>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>
> >>>>>>> * *It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
> >>>>>>> that it's not?
>
> >>>>>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>
> >>>>>>> * *You're trying to create the false impression that
> >>>>>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
> >>>>>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>
> >>>>>>No, it is not.
>
> >>>>> * *Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
> >>>>>have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
> >>>>>livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
> >>>>>lives of positive value. Go:
>
> >>>>>(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
> >>>>>for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)
>
> >>>>I explained right above
>
> >>> * *That's a lie
>
> >>That's a lie, it's right there.
>
> >>"Elimination makes AW irrelevant, moot, it's not the alternative."
>
> > * *It is one alternative
>
> It is not, that is a deliberately skewed, unbalanced juxtaposition. It's
> dishonest.
>
> Having a red car is not the alternative to having no car. The alternative to
> having no car is having a car.
>
> Having a red car is the alternative to having a green, blue, black or white
> car.
>
> *and of course it IS the opposite of
>
> > providing them with decent lives,
>
> It is not, it is the opposite of raising them.
>
> The opposite of providing them with decent lives is providing them with
> shitty lives.
>
> *> so as always we see that it's
>
> > you who are the liar, lying in an attempt to encourage acceptance
> > of the misnomer. That's pretty much all I've ever known you to
> > do, now that you mention it.
>
> This strawman has no straw left in it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>so we see that you're sticking with your regular
> >>>pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it
> >>>appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you
> >>>did prove my prediction correct.
>
> >>>>>>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
> >>>>>>>>whole position rests on.
>
> >>>>>>> * *My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
> >>>>>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
> >>>>>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>
> >>>>>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value
> >>>>>>or
> >>>>>>worse.
>
> >>>>> * *Like what?
>
> >>>>Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of
> >>>>natural
> >>>>instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.
>
> >>> * *Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive
> >>>value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing
> >>>eliminationists would like to see happen.
>
> >>Better treatment costs a lot of money, people want cheap.
>
> > * *I'm convinced it can be worked out for all cases, just as it
> > has been worked out for many if not most of them already.
>
> Based on nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>For some it is all
> >>they can afford.
>
> >>>>"Elimination" solves all those issues
>
> >>> * *Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing
> >>>to lives of positive value. Go:
>
> >>>(correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)
>
> >>I already did, it eliminates ALL the animal suffering without harming a
> >>single animal. There is no direct moral downside to the elimination of
> >>livestock as a goal, it would just be very inconvenient.
>
> >>Your solution (and mine) in practical terms perpetuates a lot of animal
> >>suffering.
>
> > * *I support eliminating the suffering and providing decent
> > lives of positive value
>
> That's redundant.
>
> , and consider that to be superior to
>
> > complete elimination
>
> It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never exist
> in the first place.
>
> > even after all these years of your supposed
> > arguments trying to change my mind about it.
>
> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to be
> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can be
> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than
> sufficient grounds.

Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
products whose production involved the infliction of suffering and
premature death, and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
agriculture, are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not all
vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why vegans
are "unrealistic".

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Oct 1, 7:12 am, "Dutch" > wrote:

>> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
>> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to
>> be
>> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can be
>> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than
>> sufficient grounds.
>
> Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
> products whose production involved the infliction of suffering and
> premature death, and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
> agriculture, are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not all
> vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why vegans
> are "unrealistic".

I didn't say all vegans but it's a pretty accurate generalization. You'd be
hard pressed to find many vegans willing to admit that some meat consumers
might be doing better than they are with respect to animal suffering. Vegans
are unrealistic for this reason and because their analysis of the economics
and other realities of farming is narrow and incomplete in other ways.
Animal farming makes use of a tremendous amount of by-products and other
inedible substances, as well as making efficient and productive use of a lot
of land that cannot be used in any other way. Vegetarianism is a decent even
excellent alternative diet but veganism crosses the line into fanaticism, as
the "obsession with micrograms" demonstrates.

On Oct 1, 2:01*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Oct 1, 7:12 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
> >> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to
> >> be
> >> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can be
> >> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than
> >> sufficient grounds.
>
> > Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
> > products whose production involved the infliction of suffering and
> > premature death, and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
> > agriculture, are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not all
> > vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why vegans
> > are "unrealistic".
>
> I didn't say all vegans but it's a pretty accurate generalization. You'd be
> hard pressed to find many vegans willing to admit that some meat consumers
> might be doing better than they are with respect to animal suffering. Vegans
> are unrealistic for this reason and because their analysis of the economics
> and other realities of farming is narrow and incomplete in other ways.
> Animal farming makes use of a tremendous amount of by-products and other
> inedible substances, as well as making efficient and productive use of a lot
> of land that cannot be used in any other way. Vegetarianism is a decent even
> excellent alternative diet but veganism crosses the line into fanaticism, as
> the "obsession with micrograms" demonstrates.

I agree with you that the "obsession with micrograms" is silly, but I
don't see why veganism crosses the line into fanaticism. It seems to
me like a rational strategy if you want to reduce your contribution to
animal suffering even further. I've also been told by two health
professionals that it's an excellent choice for my health.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Oct 1, 2:01 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > On Oct 1, 7:12 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked
>> >> for
>> >> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can
>> >> be
>> >> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than
>> >> sufficient grounds.
>>
>> > Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
>> > products whose production involved the infliction of suffering and
>> > premature death, and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
>> > agriculture, are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not all
>> > vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why vegans
>> > are "unrealistic".
>>
>> I didn't say all vegans but it's a pretty accurate generalization. You'd
>> be
>> hard pressed to find many vegans willing to admit that some meat
>> consumers
>> might be doing better than they are with respect to animal suffering.
>> Vegans
>> are unrealistic for this reason and because their analysis of the
>> economics
>> and other realities of farming is narrow and incomplete in other ways.
>> Animal farming makes use of a tremendous amount of by-products and other
>> inedible substances, as well as making efficient and productive use of a
>> lot
>> of land that cannot be used in any other way. Vegetarianism is a decent
>> even
>> excellent alternative diet but veganism crosses the line into fanaticism,
>> as
>> the "obsession with micrograms" demonstrates.
>
> I agree with you that the "obsession with micrograms" is silly, but I
> don't see why veganism crosses the line into fanaticism.

Depends on how one defines the terms, living strictly according to silly
rules and insisting that doing so is a moral imperative borders on fanatical
in my mind.

> It seems to
> me like a rational strategy if you want to reduce your contribution to
> animal suffering even further. I've also been told by two health
> professionals that it's an excellent choice for my health.

How does wearing plastic shoes and belts contribute to better health?

On Oct 2, 11:41*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 2:01 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > On Oct 1, 7:12 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked
> >> >> for
> >> >> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get
> >> >> to
> >> >> be
> >> >> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can
> >> >> be
> >> >> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than
> >> >> sufficient grounds.
>
> >> > Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
> >> > products whose production involved the infliction of suffering and
> >> > premature death, and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
> >> > agriculture, are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not all
> >> > vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why vegans
> >> > are "unrealistic".
>
> >> I didn't say all vegans but it's a pretty accurate generalization. You'd
> >> be
> >> hard pressed to find many vegans willing to admit that some meat
> >> consumers
> >> might be doing better than they are with respect to animal suffering.
> >> Vegans
> >> are unrealistic for this reason and because their analysis of the
> >> economics
> >> and other realities of farming is narrow and incomplete in other ways.
> >> Animal farming makes use of a tremendous amount of by-products and other
> >> inedible substances, as well as making efficient and productive use of a
> >> lot
> >> of land that cannot be used in any other way. Vegetarianism is a decent
> >> even
> >> excellent alternative diet but veganism crosses the line into fanaticism,
> >> as
> >> the "obsession with micrograms" demonstrates.
>
> > I agree with you that the "obsession with micrograms" is silly, but I
> > don't see why veganism crosses the line into fanaticism.
>
> Depends on how one defines the terms, living strictly according to silly
> rules and insisting that doing so is a moral imperative borders on fanatical
> in my mind.
>

I don't see why the rules should be regard as "silly" insofar as they
genuinely are a good strategy for reducing one's contribution to
animal suffering. Nor do I think that it is fanatical to say that
there is a moral imperative to make every reasonable effort to reduce
one's contribution to animal suffering, as I have suggested in the
past (though I do agree that following a vegan diet is not necessarily
the only way to achieve this). I have been criticised on the grounds
that it is too vague what counts as a "reasonable effort". But jurors
are given the instruction to apply the principle of "reasonable
doubt", obviously with the expectation that they are capable of
deliberating sensibly about how to apply this principle. If there was
some sort of disagreement about what constituted a "reasonable effort"
then I would try to resolve it by examining the facts about what kind
and extent of animal suffering was involved and how much of a burden
would be involved in avoiding participating in it.

> > It seems to
> > me like a rational strategy if you want to reduce your contribution to
> > animal suffering even further. I've also been told by two health
> > professionals that it's an excellent choice for my health.
>
> How does wearing plastic shoes and belts contribute to better health?

It doesn't as far as I am aware, and I don't think I really suggested
that it did. Two doctors have told me that following a vegan diet is
an excellent choice for my health. I apologise if I was not
sufficiently clear about what was meant here.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Oct 2, 11:41 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 1, 2:01 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> > On Oct 1, 7:12 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be
>> >> >> attacked
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't
>> >> >> get
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns
>> >> >> can
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more
>> >> >> than
>> >> >> sufficient grounds.
>>
>> >> > Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
>> >> > products whose production involved the infliction of suffering and
>> >> > premature death, and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
>> >> > agriculture, are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not
>> >> > all
>> >> > vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why
>> >> > vegans
>> >> > are "unrealistic".
>>
>> >> I didn't say all vegans but it's a pretty accurate generalization.
>> >> You'd
>> >> be
>> >> hard pressed to find many vegans willing to admit that some meat
>> >> consumers
>> >> might be doing better than they are with respect to animal suffering.
>> >> Vegans
>> >> are unrealistic for this reason and because their analysis of the
>> >> economics
>> >> and other realities of farming is narrow and incomplete in other ways.
>> >> Animal farming makes use of a tremendous amount of by-products and
>> >> other
>> >> inedible substances, as well as making efficient and productive use of
>> >> a
>> >> lot
>> >> of land that cannot be used in any other way. Vegetarianism is a
>> >> decent
>> >> even
>> >> excellent alternative diet but veganism crosses the line into
>> >> fanaticism,
>> >> as
>> >> the "obsession with micrograms" demonstrates.
>>
>> > I agree with you that the "obsession with micrograms" is silly, but I
>> > don't see why veganism crosses the line into fanaticism.
>>
>> Depends on how one defines the terms, living strictly according to silly
>> rules and insisting that doing so is a moral imperative borders on
>> fanatical
>> in my mind.
>>
>
> I don't see why the rules should be regard as "silly" insofar as they
> genuinely are a good strategy for reducing one's contribution to
> animal suffering.

You're talking in circles, agonizing about micrograms which you admit is
silly, is something most vegans do. The amount of animal suffering you
reduce that way is dwarfed by the animal suffering you increase by any one
of hundreds of other lifestyle choices you make every day.

> Nor do I think that it is fanatical to say that
> there is a moral imperative to make every reasonable effort to reduce
> one's contribution to animal suffering, as I have suggested in the
> past

Agonizing over micrograms is not reasonable.

(though I do agree that following a vegan diet is not necessarily
> the only way to achieve this). I have been criticised on the grounds
> that it is too vague what counts as a "reasonable effort". But jurors
> are given the instruction to apply the principle of "reasonable
> doubt", obviously with the expectation that they are capable of
> deliberating sensibly about how to apply this principle. If there was
> some sort of disagreement about what constituted a "reasonable effort"
> then I would try to resolve it by examining the facts about what kind
> and extent of animal suffering was involved and how much of a burden
> would be involved in avoiding participating in it.

Whatever...
>
>> > It seems to
>> > me like a rational strategy if you want to reduce your contribution to
>> > animal suffering even further. I've also been told by two health
>> > professionals that it's an excellent choice for my health.
>>
>> How does wearing plastic shoes and belts contribute to better health?
>
> It doesn't as far as I am aware, and I don't think I really suggested
> that it did. Two doctors have told me that following a vegan diet is
> an excellent choice for my health. I apologise if I was not
> sufficiently clear about what was meant here.

"Veganism" is a lifestyle choice affecting all forms of consumption, not
just diet.

On Oct 3, 4:16*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 11:41 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> > On Oct 1, 2:01 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> > On Oct 1, 7:12 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be
> >> >> >> attacked
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't
> >> >> >> get
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns
> >> >> >> can
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more
> >> >> >> than
> >> >> >> sufficient grounds.
>
> >> >> > Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
> >> >> > products whose production involved the infliction of suffering and
> >> >> > premature death, and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
> >> >> > agriculture, are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not
> >> >> > all
> >> >> > vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why
> >> >> > vegans
> >> >> > are "unrealistic".
>
> >> >> I didn't say all vegans but it's a pretty accurate generalization.
> >> >> You'd
> >> >> be
> >> >> hard pressed to find many vegans willing to admit that some meat
> >> >> consumers
> >> >> might be doing better than they are with respect to animal suffering.
> >> >> Vegans
> >> >> are unrealistic for this reason and because their analysis of the
> >> >> economics
> >> >> and other realities of farming is narrow and incomplete in other ways.
> >> >> Animal farming makes use of a tremendous amount of by-products and
> >> >> other
> >> >> inedible substances, as well as making efficient and productive use of
> >> >> a
> >> >> lot
> >> >> of land that cannot be used in any other way. Vegetarianism is a
> >> >> decent
> >> >> even
> >> >> excellent alternative diet but veganism crosses the line into
> >> >> fanaticism,
> >> >> as
> >> >> the "obsession with micrograms" demonstrates.
>
> >> > I agree with you that the "obsession with micrograms" is silly, but I
> >> > don't see why veganism crosses the line into fanaticism.
>
> >> Depends on how one defines the terms, living strictly according to silly
> >> rules and insisting that doing so is a moral imperative borders on
> >> fanatical
> >> in my mind.
>
> > I don't see why the rules should be regard as "silly" insofar as they
> > genuinely are a good strategy for reducing one's contribution to
> > animal suffering.
>
> You're talking in circles, agonizing about micrograms which you admit is
> silly, is something most vegans do. The amount of animal suffering you
> reduce that way is dwarfed by the animal suffering you increase by any one
> of hundreds of other lifestyle choices you make every day.
>

I think we might be at cross-purposes. I agree with your last
sentence. To the extent that most people who identify as vegan worry
about such things, they are engaging in an irrational pattern of
concern, yes, possibly because certain facts have not been drawn to
their attention. I agree with you on that point. But when you said
vegetaranism is reasonable, veganism is fanatical, I thought that you
were trying to make a claim that abstaining from dairy and eggs as
well as animal flesh is somehow an unreasonable step to take. That's
the point I wanted to take issue with. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
Worrying about micrograms of animal products is silly, yes, and I've
never thought otherwise or refrained from pointing out the reasons why
to my vegan friends.

> > Nor do I think that it is fanatical to say that
> > there is a moral imperative to make every reasonable effort to reduce
> > one's contribution to animal suffering, as I have suggested in the
> > past
>
> Agonizing over micrograms is not reasonable.
>

Yes, I have always agreed on this point.

> (though I do agree that following a vegan diet is not necessarily
>
> > the only way to achieve this). I have been criticised on the grounds
> > that it is too vague what counts as a "reasonable effort". But jurors
> > are given the instruction to apply the principle of "reasonable
> > doubt", obviously with the expectation that they are capable of
> > deliberating sensibly about how to apply this principle. If there was
> > some sort of disagreement about what constituted a "reasonable effort"
> > then I would try to resolve it by examining the facts about what kind
> > and extent of animal suffering was involved and how much of a burden
> > would be involved in avoiding participating in it.
>
> Whatever...
>

Presumably that would be the purpose of this newsgroup, to examine
what constitutes a "reasonable" effort to reduce one's contribution to
animal suffering. I would have thought that would be what people came
here to discuss. And you once agreed with me that attempting to move
forward on that question by an examination of the facts about how food
is produced would be a good idea. But you don't seem all that
interested in pursuing the matter at the moment. Perhaps you find
talking to David Harrison to be more engaging.

>
>
> >> > It seems to
> >> > me like a rational strategy if you want to reduce your contribution to
> >> > animal suffering even further. I've also been told by two health
> >> > professionals that it's an excellent choice for my health.
>
> >> How does wearing plastic shoes and belts contribute to better health?
>
> > It doesn't as far as I am aware, and I don't think I really suggested
> > that it did. Two doctors have told me that following a vegan diet is
> > an excellent choice for my health. I apologise if I was not
> > sufficiently clear about what was meant here.
>
> "Veganism" is a lifestyle choice affecting all forms of consumption, not
> just diet.

Yes, I am aware that that is the definition of the word. Nevertheless
I don't really see the problem with what I wrote. I didn't in any way
imply that making choices about clothing had a bearing on my health.
It might be a reasonable step to take if you are interested in
reducing your contribution to animal suffering. Perhaps you disagree
about that. I have no problem with having some kind of discussion
about what is involved in making every reasonable effort. I think that
the way to move forward on that issue is to examine the facts about
how various products are produced and how much of a burden is involved
in avoiding them. I don't think that it is defensible to say that full
veganism, including in the sense of worrying about every microgram of
animal product, is the only morally defensible strategy. I think I was
always pretty clear about that, really. I do think it is defensible to
say that some approximation to full veganism might be one reasonable
strategy. If you are interested in what I think about some other
pattern of consumption then I would need to hear the details, wouldn't
I. You don't seem all that interested in pursuing that topic in any
event, which is fine, but in that case I'm not clear on what the point
would be of hanging out on this newsgroup. I took you to be saying
that there's no rational motivation for abstaining from dairy and eggs
and I wanted to take issue with that. If your claim is that there is
no rational motivation for worrying about micrograms of animal
products then we are in agreement.

"Rupert" > wrote
> Presumably that would be the purpose of this newsgroup, to examine
> what constitutes a "reasonable" effort to reduce one's contribution to
> animal suffering. I would have thought that would be what people came
> here to discuss. And you once agreed with me that attempting to move
> forward on that question by an examination of the facts about how food
> is produced would be a good idea. But you don't seem all that
> interested in pursuing the matter at the moment. Perhaps you find
> talking to David Harrison to be more engaging.

The word "reasonable" has a very wide possible range, making this a
virtually irresolvable question. I put would put most vegans on the outside
of that range, not because they try to avoid animal products, that's not an
unreasonable strategy, but because most also have delusional ideas about the
moral imperative or consequences of this objective (i.e. they ignore the
collateral damage factor). I also put most meat eaters outside the
reasonable range because they pay no attention at all to the impact of their
diets. I think you're basically sensible, and I think I'm basically
sensible, although we may disagree on some basic points. I think that there
is a lot of confusion on your side of the debate about whether you are
taking a liberation stance, I.e. it is prima facie wrong to exploit animals,
or a utilitarian one, viewing animals as goods causes more harm. The two
views do not always align with one another, as can be easily demonstrated.

I respond to Harrison because his position is a gross perversion of the
pro-meat position, and it irks me to have a perverted point of view on my
side of the debate.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:12:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:51:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:34:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:3ktu96dfovmkb0399ist5j14lmksmogkvn@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
>>>>>>>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
>>>>>>>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
>>>>>>>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>>>>>>>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
>>>>>>>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>>>>>>>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>>>>>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>>>>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>>>>>>>> that it's not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>>>>>>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>>>>>>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
>>>>>>have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
>>>>>>livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
>>>>>>lives of positive value. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
>>>>>>for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)
>>>>>
>>>>>I explained right above
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie
>>>
>>>That's a lie, it's right there.
>>>
>>>"Elimination makes AW irrelevant, moot, it's not the alternative."
>>
>> It is one alternative
>
>It is not,

Yes it is, so you should really stop telling that lie.

>that is a deliberately skewed, unbalanced juxtaposition. It's
>dishonest.

You should stop telling those lives too.

>Having a red car is not the alternative to having no car. The alternative to
>having no car is having a car.
>
>Having a red car is the alternative to having a green, blue, black or white
>car.

Elimination of livestock is an alternative to providing
decent lives for livestock.

> and of course it IS the opposite of
>> providing them with decent lives,
>
>It is not,

Why do you want people to try to believe that?

>it is the opposite of raising them.
>
>The opposite of providing them with decent lives is providing them with
>shitty lives.

That's another alternative at least.

> > so as always we see that it's
>> you who are the liar, lying in an attempt to encourage acceptance
>> of the misnomer. That's pretty much all I've ever known you to
>> do, now that you mention it.
>
>This strawman has no straw left in it.

Then why do you want people to think of providing decent
lives and elimination in the same way.

>>>>so we see that you're sticking with your regular
>>>>pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it
>>>>appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you
>>>>did prove my prediction correct.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
>>>>>>>>>whole position rests on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>>>>>>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>>>>>>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of
>>>>>natural
>>>>>instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.
>>>>
>>>> Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive
>>>>value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing
>>>>eliminationists would like to see happen.
>>>
>>>Better treatment costs a lot of money, people want cheap.
>>
>> I'm convinced it can be worked out for all cases, just as it
>> has been worked out for many if not most of them already.
>
>Based on nothing.

LOL! No you poor little fool. It has been worked out because
some people cared enough to consider the lives of the animals
themselves and try to improve them instead of prevent them.

>>>For some it is all
>>>they can afford.
>>>
>>>>>"Elimination" solves all those issues
>>>>
>>>> Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing
>>>>to lives of positive value. Go:
>>>>
>>>>(correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)
>>>
>>>I already did, it eliminates ALL the animal suffering without harming a
>>>single animal. There is no direct moral downside to the elimination of
>>>livestock as a goal, it would just be very inconvenient.
>>>
>>>Your solution (and mine) in practical terms perpetuates a lot of animal
>>>suffering.
>>
>> I support eliminating the suffering and providing decent
>> lives of positive value
>
>That's redundant.
>
>, and consider that to be superior to
>> complete elimination
>
>It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never exist
>in the first place.

Why do you want people to think it's not good for the animals
who do?

>> even after all these years of your supposed
>> arguments trying to change my mind about it.
>
>What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
>failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to be
>born,

I don't. What I do is point out that they don't do anything
to encourage better conditions for livestock with their lifestyle
and you hate it. WHY you hate it of course it up to me to decide
because you will never be honest about it IF you will acknowledge
the fact at all.

>it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument .

In contrast to that contemptible lie:

Consideration of the animals' lives is a NECESSARY part of
developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on them

>Veg*ns can be
>attacked for being hypocritical

Many can, yes.

>and unrealistic

Anyone who refuses to give the animals' lives as much
consideration as their deaths is necessarily unrealistic, to put
it very nicely.

>and that is more than
>sufficient grounds.

Your lack of appreciation is not a restriction for those of
us who don't have it, you poor sad fool.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
> wrote:

>On Oct 1, 7:12*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:13o9a6h50moe04f2n72bom15pdnmk7v59t@4ax .com...

>>> consider that to be superior to
>>> complete elimination
>>
>> It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never exist
>> in the first place.
>>
>> > even after all these years of your supposed
>> > arguments trying to change my mind about it.
>>
>> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
>> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to be
>> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can be
>> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than
>> sufficient grounds.
>
>Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
>products whose production involved the infliction of suffering

They just deny what they feel like denying, which is not a
respectable thing to do from my pov but it probably is from
yours.

>and
>premature death,

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

>and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
>agriculture,

Even when it involves more wildlife deaths than an animal
based alternative like between rice milk and grass raised cow
milk.

>are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not all
>vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why vegans
>are "unrealistic".

For one thing they refuse to consider that millions of
animals experience lives of positive value because humans raise
them for food. That's one BIG way. In fact it may very well be
the biggest way, and all others stem from that one. And now that
you mention it I have pointed out that it could change your
entire life for the better if you could learn to appreciate lives
of positive value.

Oh and btw, however much you may want to put an end to it all
from time to time, if you can still get up and walk across the
floor, and can still drive and go where you want, and possibly
you can even hold a job for a little while now and then, YOU are
probably experiencing a life of positive value yourself. If it's
true that you are you should really try to learn to appreciate it
while you still are, because one thing is for sure that is that
it will eventually end. Maybe it will end instantly and you will
be dead, or maybe it will end and drag out and you will suffer
for a long while with a life of negative value, but either way on
that whatever life of positive value you get WILL end eventually.
Wouldn't it suck for it to end and THEN for the FIRST TIME you
learn to appreciate the difference?

On Oct 4, 7:09*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > Presumably that would be the purpose of this newsgroup, to examine
> > what constitutes a "reasonable" effort to reduce one's contribution to
> > animal suffering. I would have thought that would be what people came
> > here to discuss. And you once agreed with me that attempting to move
> > forward on that question by an examination of the facts about how food
> > is produced would be a good idea. But you don't seem all that
> > interested in pursuing the matter at the moment. Perhaps you find
> > talking to David Harrison to be more engaging.
>
> The word "reasonable" has a very wide possible range, making this a
> virtually irresolvable question. I put would put most vegans on the outside
> of that range, not because they try to avoid animal products, that's not an
> unreasonable strategy, but because most also have delusional ideas about the
> moral imperative or consequences of this objective (i.e. they ignore the
> collateral damage factor). I also put most meat eaters outside the
> reasonable range because they pay no attention at all to the impact of their
> diets. I think you're basically sensible, and I think I'm basically
> sensible, although we may disagree on some basic points. I think that there
> is a lot of confusion on your side of the debate about whether you are
> taking a liberation stance, I.e. it is prima facie wrong to exploit animals,
> or a utilitarian one, viewing animals as goods causes more harm. The two
> views do not always align with one another, as can be easily demonstrated..
>
> I respond to Harrison because his position is a gross perversion of the
> pro-meat position, and it irks me to have a perverted point of view on my
> side of the debate.

I call my position deontological because I advocate adopting a certain
set of rules even when ignoring them might be a means of promoting the
good. The point of adopting the rules in the first place is to reduce
suffering, yes. It has been established that my opposition to the use
of animals for food is not absolute. Derek emailed my friend Angie and
tried to tell her I shouldn't be on the committee of ALNSW on that
account.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Oct 4, 7:09 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > Presumably that would be the purpose of this newsgroup, to examine
>> > what constitutes a "reasonable" effort to reduce one's contribution to
>> > animal suffering. I would have thought that would be what people came
>> > here to discuss. And you once agreed with me that attempting to move
>> > forward on that question by an examination of the facts about how food
>> > is produced would be a good idea. But you don't seem all that
>> > interested in pursuing the matter at the moment. Perhaps you find
>> > talking to David Harrison to be more engaging.
>>
>> The word "reasonable" has a very wide possible range, making this a
>> virtually irresolvable question. I put would put most vegans on the
>> outside
>> of that range, not because they try to avoid animal products, that's not
>> an
>> unreasonable strategy, but because most also have delusional ideas about
>> the
>> moral imperative or consequences of this objective (i.e. they ignore the
>> collateral damage factor). I also put most meat eaters outside the
>> reasonable range because they pay no attention at all to the impact of
>> their
>> diets. I think you're basically sensible, and I think I'm basically
>> sensible, although we may disagree on some basic points. I think that
>> there
>> is a lot of confusion on your side of the debate about whether you are
>> taking a liberation stance, I.e. it is prima facie wrong to exploit
>> animals,
>> or a utilitarian one, viewing animals as goods causes more harm. The two
>> views do not always align with one another, as can be easily
>> demonstrated.
>>
>> I respond to Harrison because his position is a gross perversion of the
>> pro-meat position, and it irks me to have a perverted point of view on my
>> side of the debate.
>
> I call my position deontological because I advocate adopting a certain
> set of rules even when ignoring them might be a means of promoting the
> good. The point of adopting the rules in the first place is to reduce
> suffering, yes. It has been established that my opposition to the use
> of animals for food is not absolute. Derek emailed my friend Angie and
> tried to tell her I shouldn't be on the committee of ALNSW on that
> account.

Derek's an idiot. Your position may be contradictory in some respects, but I
think that is inevitable. Many of the most dedicated and tireless advocates
for animals are meat eaters, even hunters. It's not that easy to know what's
right and what's wrong, and what we are morally permitted to do. If you're
sure of yourself then you probably have not thought things through well
enough.

<dh@.> wrote
> For one thing they refuse to consider that millions of
> animals experience lives of positive value because humans raise
> them for food.

That is a self-serving, dishonest and misleading statement, animals
experience lives of positive value because humans take good care of them,
not because humans raise them for food. Humans raising animals for food in
and of itself does not lead to "lives of positive value" and in reality in
most cases these days it does not.

<dh@.> wrote ...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:12:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:51:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:34:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:3ktu96dfovmkb0399ist5j14lmksmogkvn@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
>>>>>>>>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
>>>>>>>>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
>>>>>>>>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>>>>>>>>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
>>>>>>>>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>>>>>>>>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>>>>>>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>>>>>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>>>>>>>>> that it's not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>>>>>>>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>>>>>>>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, it is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
>>>>>>>have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
>>>>>>>livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
>>>>>>>lives of positive value. Go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
>>>>>>>for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I explained right above
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie
>>>>
>>>>That's a lie, it's right there.
>>>>
>>>>"Elimination makes AW irrelevant, moot, it's not the alternative."
>>>
>>> It is one alternative
>>
>>It is not,
>
> Yes it is, so you should really stop telling that lie.

You mean you don't like hearing the truth.

>>that is a deliberately skewed, unbalanced juxtaposition. It's
>>dishonest.
>
> You should stop telling those lives too.

See above.

>
>>Having a red car is not the alternative to having no car. The alternative
>>to
>>having no car is having a car.
>>
>>Having a red car is the alternative to having a green, blue, black or
>>white
>>car.
>
> Elimination of livestock is an alternative to providing
> decent lives for livestock.

No it isn't. To prove it, you can also make the false dichotomy that
elimination of livestock is an alternative to torturing them. That's the
false dichotomy that ARAs use, you just twisted and perverted their false
argument to suit yourself.

Providing decent lives is the alternative to providing bad lives. PERIOD

>> and of course it IS the opposite of
>>> providing them with decent lives,
>>
>>It is not,
>
> Why do you want people to try to believe that?

People already believe it, everyone does, except you.

>>it is the opposite of raising them.
>>
>>The opposite of providing them with decent lives is providing them with
>>shitty lives.
>
> That's another alternative at least.

It is THE alternative.

>> > so as always we see that it's
>>> you who are the liar, lying in an attempt to encourage acceptance
>>> of the misnomer. That's pretty much all I've ever known you to
>>> do, now that you mention it.
>>
>>This strawman has no straw left in it.
>
> Then why do you want people to think of providing decent
> lives and elimination in the same way.

I've never said I did. Those are two completely different things, not
opposites, just different.

>>>>>so we see that you're sticking with your regular
>>>>>pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it
>>>>>appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you
>>>>>did prove my prediction correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
>>>>>>>>>>whole position rests on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>>>>>>>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>>>>>>>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value
>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of
>>>>>>natural
>>>>>>instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive
>>>>>value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing
>>>>>eliminationists would like to see happen.
>>>>
>>>>Better treatment costs a lot of money, people want cheap.
>>>
>>> I'm convinced it can be worked out for all cases, just as it
>>> has been worked out for many if not most of them already.
>>
>>Based on nothing.
>
> LOL! No you poor little fool. It has been worked out because
> some people cared enough to consider the lives of the animals
> themselves and try to improve them instead of prevent them.

"Preventing" the lives of livestock is not a moral crime of any kind. It's
meaningless.

>
>>>>For some it is all
>>>>they can afford.
>>>>
>>>>>>"Elimination" solves all those issues
>>>>>
>>>>> Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing
>>>>>to lives of positive value. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>(correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)
>>>>
>>>>I already did, it eliminates ALL the animal suffering without harming a
>>>>single animal. There is no direct moral downside to the elimination of
>>>>livestock as a goal, it would just be very inconvenient.
>>>>
>>>>Your solution (and mine) in practical terms perpetuates a lot of animal
>>>>suffering.
>>>
>>> I support eliminating the suffering and providing decent
>>> lives of positive value
>>
>>That's redundant.
>>
>>, and consider that to be superior to
>>> complete elimination
>>
>>It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never
>>exist
>>in the first place.
>
> Why do you want people to think it's not good for the animals
> who do?

I don't, but in reality it seldom is. I want people to believe the truth,
not ARA bullshit, not your self-serving platitudes.

>>> even after all these years of your supposed
>>> arguments trying to change my mind about it.
>>
>>What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
>>failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to
>>be
>>born,
>
> I don't. What I do is point out that they don't do anything
> to encourage better conditions for livestock with their lifestyle

That's a stupid, meaningless and and false charge. Just lessening the demand
for animal products could theoretically lead to less production and thereby
less crowding and better treatment.

> and you hate it. WHY you hate it of course it up to me to decide
> because you will never be honest about it IF you will acknowledge
> the fact at all.

I just told you why I hate it, because I hate stupidity and hypocrisy, you
epitomize both.

>>it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument .
>
> In contrast to that contemptible lie:
>
> Consideration of the animals' lives is a NECESSARY part of
> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on them

That is meaningless prattle.

>>Veg*ns can be
>>attacked for being hypocritical
>
> Many can, yes.
>
>>and unrealistic
>
> Anyone who refuses to give the animals' lives as much
> consideration as their deaths is necessarily unrealistic, to put
> it very nicely.

That's another false and misleading dichotomy, iow, meaningless crap you
cooked up.

>
>>and that is more than
>>sufficient grounds.
>
> Your lack of appreciation is not a restriction for those of
> us who don't have it, you poor sad fool.

Your "appreciation" is cheap self-serving lip service, nothing more.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:11:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:23:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 1, 7:12*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:13o9a6h50moe04f2n72bom15pdnmk7v59t@4ax .com...
>>
>>>>> consider that to be superior to
>>>>> complete elimination
>>>>
>>>> It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never exist
>>>> in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> > even after all these years of your supposed
>>>> > arguments trying to change my mind about it.
>>>>
>>>> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
>>>> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to be
>>>> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can be
>>>> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than
>>>> sufficient grounds.
>>>
>>>Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any
>>>products whose production involved the infliction of suffering
>>
>> They just deny what they feel like denying, which is not a
>>respectable thing to do from my pov but it probably is from
>>yours.
>>
>>>and
>>>premature death,
>>
>> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
>>if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
>>reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
>>we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
>>killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
>>of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
>>experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>>
>>>and yet continue to support commercial plant-based
>>>agriculture,
>>
>> Even when it involves more wildlife deaths than an animal
>>based alternative like between rice milk and grass raised cow
>>milk.
>>
>>>are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not all
>>>vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why vegans
>>>are "unrealistic".
>>
>> For one thing they refuse to consider that millions of
>>animals experience lives of positive value because humans raise
>>them for food.
>
>That is a self-serving, dishonest and misleading statement,

Those are facts which you hate because they work against the
misnomer, but they are facts regardless of your denials.

>animals
>experience lives of positive value because humans take good care of them,
>not because humans raise them for food.

Why do humans raise the animals you're referring to if not
for food?

>Humans raising animals for food in
>and of itself does not lead to "lives of positive value"

In many cases it leads to lives of positive value.

>and in reality in
>most cases these days it does not.

What examples do you have in mind?

>>That's one BIG way. In fact it may very well be
>>the biggest way, and all others stem from that one. And now that
>>you mention it I have pointed out that it could change your
>>entire life for the better if you could learn to appreciate lives
>>of positive value.
>>
>> Oh and btw, however much you may want to put an end to it all
>>from time to time, if you can still get up and walk across the
>>floor, and can still drive and go where you want, and possibly
>>you can even hold a job for a little while now and then, YOU are
>>probably experiencing a life of positive value yourself. If it's
>>true that you are you should really try to learn to appreciate it
>>while you still are, because one thing is for sure that is that
>>it will eventually end. Maybe it will end instantly and you will
>>be dead, or maybe it will end and drag out and you will suffer
>>for a long while with a life of negative value, but either way on
>>that whatever life of positive value you get WILL end eventually.
>>Wouldn't it suck for it to end and THEN for the FIRST TIME you
>>learn to appreciate the difference?

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:35:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote ...
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:12:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:51:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:34:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:3ktu96dfovmkb0399ist5j14lmksmogkvn@4 ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You obviously never got over it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,
>>>>>>>>>>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
>>>>>>>>>>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>for years." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights
>>>>>>>>>>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>>>>>>>>>>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>>>>>>>>>>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,
>>>>>>>>>>>moot, it's not the alternative.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe
>>>>>>>>>> that it's not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You're creating a false dichotomy,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're trying to create the false impression that
>>>>>>>>>> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing
>>>>>>>>>> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, it is not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should
>>>>>>>>have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any
>>>>>>>>livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with
>>>>>>>>lives of positive value. Go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt
>>>>>>>>for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I explained right above
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a lie
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a lie, it's right there.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Elimination makes AW irrelevant, moot, it's not the alternative."
>>>>
>>>> It is one alternative
>>>
>>>It is not,
>>
>> Yes it is, so you should really stop telling that lie.
>
>You mean you don't like hearing the truth.

LOL! You lying that elimination is not an alternative is not
a case of me hearing the truth you poor fool.

>>>that is a deliberately skewed, unbalanced juxtaposition. It's
>>>dishonest.
>>
>> You should stop telling those lives too.
>
>See above.

You lied about your previous lie and we both know it. I saw
it, but I'm not very impressed by it.

>>>Having a red car is not the alternative to having no car. The alternative
>>>to
>>>having no car is having a car.
>>>
>>>Having a red car is the alternative to having a green, blue, black or
>>>white
>>>car.
>>
>> Elimination of livestock is an alternative to providing
>> decent lives for livestock.
>
>No it isn't.

Yes it is and in fact a number of misnomer addicts have
recommended it, and you yourself try to argue in favor of its
acceptance as you're trying to do now.

>To prove it, you can also make the false dichotomy that
>elimination of livestock is an alternative to torturing them. That's the
>false dichotomy that ARAs use,

It is an alternative to providing them with lives of negative
value as well as to providing them with lives of positive value.
They are all alternatives to each other. Why do you want to
pretend they're not, do you have any clue about that?

>you just twisted and perverted their false
>argument to suit yourself.
>
>Providing decent lives is the alternative to providing bad lives. PERIOD
>
> >> and of course it IS the opposite of
>>>> providing them with decent lives,
>>>
>>>It is not,
>>
>> Why do you want people to try to believe that?
>
>People already believe it, everyone does, except you.

The only people who MIGHT believe it would be some of your
fellow misnomer huggers, and of course I suspect a number of
those who claim to know they're lying when they do.

>>>it is the opposite of raising them.
>>>
>>>The opposite of providing them with decent lives is providing them with
>>>shitty lives.
>>
>> That's another alternative at least.
>
>It is THE alternative.

LOL!!! Just because it happens to be one of your favorites
doesn't necessarily make it "THE" one.

>>> > so as always we see that it's
>>>> you who are the liar, lying in an attempt to encourage acceptance
>>>> of the misnomer. That's pretty much all I've ever known you to
>>>> do, now that you mention it.
>>>
>>>This strawman has no straw left in it.
>>
>> Then why do you want people to think of providing decent
>> lives and elimination in the same way.
>
>I've never said I did.

You've tried to create the impression that they are even
though I don't recall you ever being honest about it.

>Those are two completely different things,

That's about as much honesty as I've ever seen you display.
It usually surprises me on the rare occassions that you're honest
about something, as it did this time.

>not
>opposites, just different.
>
>>>>>>so we see that you're sticking with your regular
>>>>>>pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it
>>>>>>appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you
>>>>>>did prove my prediction correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>one of a long list of fallacies your
>>>>>>>>>>>whole position rests on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of
>>>>>>>>>> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised
>>>>>>>>>> for food, and billions more can in the future.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value
>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>>worse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of
>>>>>>>natural
>>>>>>>instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive
>>>>>>value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing
>>>>>>eliminationists would like to see happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>Better treatment costs a lot of money, people want cheap.
>>>>
>>>> I'm convinced it can be worked out for all cases, just as it
>>>> has been worked out for many if not most of them already.
>>>
>>>Based on nothing.
>>
>> LOL! No you poor little fool. It has been worked out because
>> some people cared enough to consider the lives of the animals
>> themselves and try to improve them instead of prevent them.
>
>"Preventing"

No "Providing". Cage free eggs are one example. There are
certainly a lot more veg*n alternatives than there are animal
friendly alternatives, which I'm of course opposed to and it's
realy the main thing I hate about you people. Yes of course I
hate your various types of dishonesties too, but the influence
you actually HAVE on the market sux most imo. You people have
convinced the brainless ones who give some tiny bit of a shit
that it's better to do NOTHING for livestock, than it is to
contribute to lives of positive value for them. You people SUCK
from my pov! I'm convinced that if it were NOT for people like
you there would be a lot more animal friendly products at a lot
more reasonable prices available, to the benefit of the animals
if not also to their consumers.

>the lives of livestock is not a moral crime of any kind. It's
>meaningless.

Yeah yeah, we know damn well that's as far as you want
people to think about it. You should be ashamed of it though and
would be if you were in any way a decent person yourself, and you
wouldn't even BE "arguing" shit like that if you were in any way
in favor of decent AW over elimination.

>>>>>For some it is all
>>>>>they can afford.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Elimination" solves all those issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing
>>>>>>to lives of positive value. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)
>>>>>
>>>>>I already did, it eliminates ALL the animal suffering without harming a
>>>>>single animal. There is no direct moral downside to the elimination of
>>>>>livestock as a goal, it would just be very inconvenient.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your solution (and mine) in practical terms perpetuates a lot of animal
>>>>>suffering.
>>>>
>>>> I support eliminating the suffering and providing decent
>>>> lives of positive value
>>>
>>>That's redundant.
>>>
>>>, and consider that to be superior to
>>>> complete elimination
>>>
>>>It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never
>>>exist
>>>in the first place.
>>
>> Why do you want people to think it's not good for the animals
>> who do?
>
>I don't, but in reality it seldom is. I want people to believe the truth,
>not ARA bullshit, not your self-serving platitudes.
>
>>>> even after all these years of your supposed
>>>> arguments trying to change my mind about it.
>>>
>>>What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
>>>failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to
>>>be
>>>born,
>>
>> I don't. What I do is point out that they don't do anything
>> to encourage better conditions for livestock with their lifestyle
>
>That's a stupid, meaningless and and false charge.

In contrast to that lie it's the truth, and it's also a
situation that they deliberately try to bring about.
.. . .
>> Consideration of the animals' lives is a NECESSARY part of
>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on them
>
>That is meaningless prattle.

In contrast to that lie it's yet another fact that you people
hate because it works against elimination.

>>>Veg*ns can be
>>>attacked for being hypocritical
>>
>> Many can, yes.
>>
>>>and unrealistic
>>
>> Anyone who refuses to give the animals' lives as much
>> consideration as their deaths is necessarily unrealistic, to put
>> it very nicely.
>
>That's another false and misleading dichotomy, iow, meaningless crap you
>cooked up.

In contrast to that lie it's yet ANOTHER fact that you people
hate because it works against elimination.

>>>and that is more than
>>>sufficient grounds.
>>
>> Your lack of appreciation is not a restriction for those of
>> us who don't have it, you poor sad fool.
>
>Your "appreciation" is cheap self-serving lip service, nothing more.

In contrast to that lie it's yet another fact that you people
hate because it works against elimination.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:11:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>> For one thing they refuse to consider that millions of
>>>animals experience lives of positive value because humans raise
>>>them for food.
>>
>>That is a self-serving, dishonest and misleading statement,
>
> Those are facts which you hate because they work against the
> misnomer, but they are facts regardless of your denials.

That statement does not <sic> "work against the misnomer" it benefits AR
because it discredits you, and it's not the reason I hate it.


>>animals
>>experience lives of positive value because humans take good care of them,
>>not because humans raise them for food.
>
> Why do humans raise the animals you're referring to if not
> for food?

Are you this stupid? Animals' lives are not "positive" because they're
raised for food, they're positive because of AW measures, many of which have
been advocated and pushed by AR groups like PeTA.

>>Humans raising animals for food in
>>and of itself does not lead to "lives of positive value"
>
> In many cases it leads to lives of positive value.

No it doesn't, not in a causative sense.

Getting a driver's license in many cases leads to drunk driving and having a
car accident and killing someone, that doesn't make it the cause.

Lives of "positive value" *follow* the animals being raised for food, the
cause however is attention to AW.

>>and in reality in
>>most cases these days it does not.
>
> What examples do you have in mind?

High volume factory farms of all kinds, chicken farms where the chickens
never see the light of day, crowded hog barns, beef production where the
steers spend 90% of their lives in crowded feedlots, battery egg production.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:35:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


>>Your "appreciation" is cheap self-serving lip service, nothing more.
>
> In contrast to that lie it's yet another fact that you people
> hate because it works against elimination.

Your game is up, the strawman is dead. You "appreciate" meat, you
"appreciate" cock fighting, you *pretend* to appreciate animals because it
makes you feel better.

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:13:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:11:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>> For one thing they refuse to consider that millions of
>>>>animals experience lives of positive value because humans raise
>>>>them for food.
>>>
>>>That is a self-serving, dishonest and misleading statement,
>>
>> Those are facts which you hate because they work against the
>> misnomer, but they are facts regardless of your denials.
>
>That statement does not <sic> "work against the misnomer" it benefits AR
>because it discredits you, and it's not the reason I hate it.
>
>
>>>animals
>>>experience lives of positive value because humans take good care of them,
>>>not because humans raise them for food.
>>
>> Why do humans raise the animals you're referring to if not
>> for food?
>
>Are you this stupid? Animals' lives are not "positive" because they're
>raised for food, they're positive because of AW measures, many of which have
>been advocated and pushed by AR groups like PeTA.

My guess is that regulations are determined by AW people
associated with the government and groups like PeTA try to grab
as much credit for them as they can. For example if they heard
that some practice was being investigated or about to be revised
they would begin making noise about the issue to pretend that it
was their influence that made the difference, when in fact they
just exploited something that was going to be changed with or
without them. Have you ever heard of the US agriculture
department consulting eliminationists about anything regarding
any sort of animals? Neither have I.

>>>Humans raising animals for food in
>>>and of itself does not lead to "lives of positive value"
>>
>> In many cases it leads to lives of positive value.
>
>No it doesn't,

Yes it does, in millions of cases that you people don't want
other people to take into consideration or even acknowledge the
existence of.

>not in a causative sense.
>
>Getting a driver's license in many cases leads to drunk driving and having a
>car accident and killing someone, that doesn't make it the cause.
>
>Lives of "positive value" *follow* the animals being raised for food, the
>cause however is attention to AW.
>
>>>and in reality in
>>>most cases these days it does not.
>>
>> What examples do you have in mind?
>
>High volume factory farms of all kinds, chicken farms where the chickens
>never see the light of day,

Chickens don't CARE whether or not they ever see the light of
day, so your "objection" is completely meaningless.

>crowded hog barns,

Overcrowding is a form of cruelty.

>beef production where the
>steers spend 90% of their lives in crowded feedlots,

When they spend less than 50% it's ok though. I've never
heard of a situation where any cattle spend that much time in
feedlots, or even 50% now that you mention it.

>battery egg production.

I agree that in most cases it would probably be better to
have no life than that of the average battery hen. Broilers are
ok though, and cage free layers, and also the partents of both
groups are kept in cage free houses. So you have a valid point
about the battery cages and about overcrowding in general. But
you have nothing worthy of consideration in reagards to chickens
seeing the sun and cattle.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:13:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>

>>>>animals
>>>>experience lives of positive value because humans take good care of
>>>>them,
>>>>not because humans raise them for food.
>>>
>>> Why do humans raise the animals you're referring to if not
>>> for food?
>>
>>Are you this stupid? Animals' lives are not "positive" because they're
>>raised for food, they're positive because of AW measures, many of which
>>have
>>been advocated and pushed by AR groups like PeTA.
>
> My guess is that regulations are determined by AW people
> associated with the government

Whoever does it, good for them. My point is that lives are positive because
of AW measures, not because the animals are raised for food, as you so
dishonestly try to present with the LoL.