How cruel is leather?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>
>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>
>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>
>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
>>> let's
>>> not forget that part.
>>
>>My objection to the LoL is that it is a circular,
>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>
> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.

No, from a logical and rational point of view.

It's bullshit David, always has been, always will be.

How cruel is leather?
 

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>> since
>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>arguments
>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>
>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>
>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>
>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
>> let's
>> not forget that part.
>
>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
>lives of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.

ONLY from an eliminationist pov. From the pov of anyone who favors decent AW
over elimination that particular result is a very significant aspect of human
influence on animals, even when it's more because of the consideration of the
farmer than actual AW laws and regulations.

>>>> since you reveal yourself as an eliminationist
>>>> frequently.
>>>
>>>I never do.
>>
>> LOL! Just making use of your favorite insulting term for appreciation
>> of
>> lives of positive value reveals you, since ONLY an eliminationist would
>> have
>> reason to use an insulting term for it. Duh.
>
> ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value
>for livestock] is a transparent euphemism and a deliberate
>deception. ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
>value for livestock] is an attempt to make the lives of animals an issue in
>favor of raising them. It is circular, illegitimate reasoning.

LOL!!! It's just another aspect of human influence on animals that you
happen to hate because and ONLY because it works against the elimination
obsession. Duh!

>>>> As I've pointed out many times, referring to appreciation for lives
>>>> of positive value as the LoL is an attempt at insult that ONLY an
>>>> eliminationist
>>>> would have any reason to attempt. Opposing consideration of those same
>>>> lives is
>>>> again something that ONLY an eliminationist would have reason to do.
>>>> Certainly
>>>> NO ONE who truly favors decent AW over elimination has any reason to do
>>>> those
>>>> things, and as we've seen from Etter and Ward Clark even people who
>>>> don't
>>>> care
>>>> much if anything about AW don't have any reason to oppose the
>>>> consideration I
>>>> suggest. They said they didn't agree, but they made no attempt at all to
>>>> oppose
>>>> the idea.
>>>
>>>They both tried to tell you you were crazy, as have numerous others, but
>>>you
>>>won't listen.
>>>
>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value" and "consideration" are self
>>>serving bullshit sophisms.
>>>
>>>Your position is a total lie.
>>
>> ONLY an eliminationist would have reason to be restricted to that level
>> of
>> ignorance because only an eliminationist would be unable to develop that
>> sort of
>> appreciation. Instead, IF such a person were to try, it might make him
>> feel
>> "dirty" or something like that which wouldn't apply to a normal person.
>
>You know the names of all the avowed antis who have tried to get you off
>this kick,

There have been none. Feral doesn't count for shit. Ward Clark and Rick
Etter said they didn't agree with me, and that's as far as they ever would go
with it so they never tried to get me off anything. They don't care about AW,
only about opposing the misnomer. In contrast to that ALL the people who had an
interest in AW agreed with me including Marl and Poly from an antielimination
group, and Katy who was an actual agriculture student at the time, and a few
other AW minded people I forget the names of, and of course Didderot and he
alone would have been enough for me. ALL! the real AW people agreed with me,
which btw is ANOTHER WAY I can tell you're not in favor of AW over the misnomer.
All the people who actually are, and who are the people I respect, have agreed.

>how can you possibly still play this stupid "eliminationist"
>strawman?
>
> ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value for
>livestock] isn't "appreciation",

Not for eliminationists of course but for people who favor AW it certain is.

>it's just a bad idea.

LOL!!! Certainly not for anyone who honestly favors decent AW over
elimination.

How cruel is leather?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
>>>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do,
>>>>> so
>>>>> let's
>>>>> not forget that part.
>>>>
>>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
>>>>lives
>>>of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>>
>>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>>
>>No
>
> Yes.

No, "having appreciation" is meaningless, self-serving lip service. The
proof is evident, you cannot describe even a theoretical animal who ever
benefitted from it.

How cruel is leather?
 

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
>>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>>
>>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
>>>> let's
>>>> not forget that part.
>>>
>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives
>>of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>
>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>
>No

Yes. We've seen that to be the case.

How cruel is leather?
 

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever
>>>>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to
>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do, so
>>>>>> let's
>>>>>> not forget that part.
>>>>>
>>>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives
>>>>of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>>>
>>>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Yes. We've seen that to be the case.
>
>No

Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose having
appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value for
livestock. If you think any other group does, then try to explain who they are
and why. Go:

How cruel is leather?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:qug4g79cl3elu7kd4jl1j64jrcla7l8dbi@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>> not forget that part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
>>>>>>lives
>>>>>of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>>>>
>>>>No
>>>
>>> Yes. We've seen that to be the case.
>>
>>No
>
> Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose the
> LoL.

That's a lie and you know it.

How cruel is leather?
 

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
>>>>>>>lives of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>>>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>>>>>
>>>>>No
>>>>
>>>> Yes. We've seen that to be the case.
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
>> [having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value
>> for livestock.]
>
>That's a lie and you know it.

LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who are in
favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when decent
AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just describing your
position is hilarious!

How cruel is leather?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:a9jcg7tl15508tm09t74btbnks2pgaa782@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>lives of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>>>>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. We've seen that to be the case.
>>>>
>>>>No
>>>
>>> Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
>>> [having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
>>> value
>>> for livestock.]
>>
>>That's a lie and you know it.
>
> LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who
> are in
> favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when
> decent
> AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just describing
> your
> position is hilarious!

A paragraph full of ****wit-isms.

How cruel is leather?
 

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:31:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
>>>> [having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
>>>> value
>>>> for livestock.]
>>>
>>>That's a lie and you know it.
>>
>> LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who
>> are in
>> favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when
>> decent
>> AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just describing
>> your
>> position is hilarious!
>
>A paragraph full of ****wit-isms.

Your moronic position is no less hilarious for that lame remark.

How cruel is leather?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:31:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>>> We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
>>>>> [having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
>>>>> value
>>>>> for livestock.]
>>>>
>>>>That's a lie and you know it.
>>>
>>> LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who
>>> are in
>>> favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when
>>> decent
>>> AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just
>>> describing
>>> your
>>> position is hilarious!
>>
>>A paragraph full of ****wit-isms.
>
> Your moronic position is no less hilarious for that lame remark.

You really are a sad case.