Dave wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
>
>
wrote:
> Brain structure, behavior...
And, as below, increasingly bio-chemistry, in part the result of DNA
endowment or challenge.
>
>>Rights belong to sentient beings because they are the only ones that
>>are capable of making rational choices about their best interest.
> The point of rights in this context is not to enable people to act in
> what they perceive to be their best interests. It is to protect other
> conscious entities from harm.
We still have the problem of who gets to decide what harm is. "Spare the
rod, spoil the child?"
>>Kids dont have those rights because they cant make the same rational
>>choices.
> So does that mean that if someone harms a child then the best solution
> is not litigation, but to inform their case workers its time to up
> the meds?
As below...
>>I dont assume that all who post on this issue are sentient. If I see a
>>man abusing an animal, I know he is not sentient, and would try to tell
>>his case worker to increase his meds. Criminal charges gratify the
>>instinct for self-righteousness, but dont really deal with the problem.

> Rehabilitation is far more important than punishment but by locking
> away those who would abuse others you are protecting potential future
> vicitms. Animals who can suffer deserve such protection.
And who decides what suffering is? There's some evidence that plants
respond, as if in pain, to being burned, but it happens at such a
slow rate that you do not feel their pain. That is not the same as
saying the pain, to a plant, or a tick, or whatever, does not exist.

So as above, we lock up, or use other such forcible means to prevent
those we think would cause harm; we should use the same criteria when
we perceive the risk of harming a child. And indeed, when a mother is
a drug addict, her children are removed from her custody, not for what
she has already done, but what the court assumes she will do. so, it
is litigation, but it is not imprisonment. Punishment of an abusive
parent is too late; the kid is already traumatized.

Whether for children or animals or other non-sentient beings, the way
to deal with this is not to look at the harm done, but to consider the
mental state of the perpetrator, and what steps may be taken to prevent
traumatic abuse. When you find a boy decapitating insects, you are not
concerned about the rights of bugs, but the mental pathology in the boy.

The whole issue goes against the common law idea of innocent until
proven guilty. The culture that steps in too soon, as with political
correctness, stifles innovation; those that step in too late suffer with
the contagious psychopathology, where one psychopath traumatizes many
others. There is no simple solution, but the court/legal system is way
behind the curve on this, whereas psychiatry and psychology are trying
to understand the effects of hormone abnormalities and biochemistry that
tends to produce violence and abuse.

Dutch wrote:
>>>Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does not make
>>>them *right*.
>>Agreed, and who gets to decide *which* animals have rights?
> Humans, the same ones who decided that humans have rights.

>>If Zebras
>>do, why dont ticks? Why not mosquitoes or bol weevils? Size is not a
>>reliable factor; as noted, some in human form are not even as conscious
>>as an insect.
> "Human rights" is such a fundamental all-pervasive ideal (self-evident) that
> we forget that the word "right" still exists outside that context. It is
> correct and understandable in language to say for example that pets have a
> right to be protected from neglect and abuse. That right is held against
> their owner and caregiver.
Its logically easier to use the behavior of the caregiver in diagnosis;
no sane person would abuse an animal. Even those who dont believe in
'animal rights' can see the mental pathology. Lets work for common
ground and a solution rather than unachievable moral standards.

>>Rights belong to sentient beings because they are the only ones that
>>are capable of making rational choices about their best interest. Kids
>>dont have those rights because they cant make the same rational choices.
> Kids *do* have all the fundamental rights, even though they don't understand
> them.
They only have these 'rights' because sentient beings endow them, not
because of their own sentience. Which is fundamentally oxymoronic; the
whole idea of rights are the powers to make your own choices, not to
have them made by someone else, even if "for" you.
>
>
>>I dont assume that all who post on this issue are sentient.
> That's nonsense.
We see plenty of insane rants on usenet; why assume that none of these
deranged posters will respond to this thread?

>>If I see a
>>man abusing an animal, I know he is not sentient, and would try to tell
>>his case worker to increase his meds.
> That's flippant and non-responsive.
Au Contraire, it requires someone familiar with the behavior of the perp,
and consideration of the best procedure.
>
>>Criminal charges gratify the
>>instinct for self-righteousness, but dont really deal with the problem.
> Certainly they do, as much as criminal charges work to deter any crime.
By the time you can place charges, the kid is already traumatized. Perps
are *not* rational! Abuse comes out of a range of psychopathologies, and
preventing it depends on exposure to recreational drugs, prescriptions,
and even other chemicals in the environment. Deterrence only works with
the rational. The Fins did FMRI brain scans of their most violent men,
and find there is a constricted neural pathway from the Corpus collosum
(the reptile brain) and the prefrontal lobes. When emotionally aroused,
prefrontal activity dramatically declines. They quite literally cannot
think straight when 'their blood is up'. And as neurologist Ramachandran
explained, such men really do "see red" because their occipital lobes're
operating with the filtering from the reptilian brain, which cannot see
color, and filters out the greens.

Dave wrote:
>>You see Dave, I reckon only rapists murderers robbers fraudsters of
>>human beings, scum who cause other human beings harm, deserve to be in
>>jail, those who treat animals badly deserve nothing but contempt,
>>ridicule, help WHY? because animals dont have rights ONLY humans do?
> Why do you consider that animals deserve no protection from harm?
Because he does not understand that those who abuse animals in public
abuse humans in private.

"Day Brown" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:

>> "Human rights" is such a fundamental all-pervasive ideal (self-evident)
>> that we forget that the word "right" still exists outside that context.
>> It is correct and understandable in language to say for example that pets
>> have a right to be protected from neglect and abuse. That right is held
>> against their owner and caregiver.

> Its logically easier to use the behavior of the caregiver in diagnosis;
> no sane person would abuse an animal.

That's a fallacy, lots of people do wrong things out of anger, greed,
jealousy, or any number of motives. That doesn't make them insane.

> Even those who dont believe in
> 'animal rights' can see the mental pathology. Lets work for common
> ground and a solution rather than unachievable moral standards.

We need all those things.

>>>Rights belong to sentient beings because they are the only ones that
>>>are capable of making rational choices about their best interest. Kids
>>>dont have those rights because they cant make the same rational choices.
>> Kids *do* have all the fundamental rights, even though they don't
>> understand them.

> They only have these 'rights' because sentient beings endow them, not
> because of their own sentience.

*Humans* endow rights, and never to non-sentient objects.

> Which is fundamentally oxymoronic; the
> whole idea of rights are the powers to make your own choices, not to
> have them made by someone else, even if "for" you.

Rights exist to enable a fair, orderly and livable society.

>>>I dont assume that all who post on this issue are sentient.

>> That's nonsense.

> We see plenty of insane rants on usenet; why assume that none of these
> deranged posters will respond to this thread?

If someone is deranged that is a sure sign that he is sentient.

>>>If I see a
>>>man abusing an animal, I know he is not sentient, and would try to tell
>>>his case worker to increase his meds.

>> That's flippant and non-responsive.

> Au Contraire, it requires someone familiar with the behavior of the perp,
> and consideration of the best procedure.

First of all, you're misusing the word sentient. Secondly the statement only
stipulated "seeing" animal abuse, it did not assume that you know the
person, their history, or motives.

And what's this crap of eliminating all spaces between respondants?

>>>Criminal charges gratify the
>>>instinct for self-righteousness, but dont really deal with the problem.

>> Certainly they do, as much as criminal charges work to deter any crime.

> By the time you can place charges, the kid is already traumatized.

By the time you respond in ANY way, the act has already taken place.

> Perps
> are *not* rational! Abuse comes out of a range of psychopathologies, and
> preventing it depends on exposure to recreational drugs, prescriptions,
> and even other chemicals in the environment. Deterrence only works with
> the rational. The Fins did FMRI brain scans of their most violent men,
> and find there is a constricted neural pathway from the Corpus collosum
> (the reptile brain) and the prefrontal lobes. When emotionally aroused,
> prefrontal activity dramatically declines. They quite literally cannot
> think straight when 'their blood is up'. And as neurologist Ramachandran
> explained, such men really do "see red" because their occipital lobes're
> operating with the filtering from the reptilian brain, which cannot see
> color, and filters out the greens.

Shall we ahem.. eliminate them then? Sounds good to me.

<dh@.> wrote
> On 17 Oct 2005 10:08:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
>>> encouraging people to consider it sux?
>>
>>What sucks is the idea that influencing evolution = creating lives.
>
> The animals would not live otherwise.

You still didn't "create life", particularly not by eating a Big Mac.

>Why do you think that fact
> sux? LOL! Why do you think I should agree that the fact sux? If you
> think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.

Arranging animal sex so that they are born in captivity so we can kill and
eat them is not some selfless act of "providing life", it's manipulating
nature to serve our ends. There's nothing wrong with it, but to claim that
it's a moral achievement is sick, and stupid.

dh@. wrote:

> On 17 Oct 2005 10:08:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >But the numbers of wild animals and numbers of farmed animals are
> >*not* independant variables. Why do you insist on counting the number
> >of farmed animals and not the number of wild animals?
>
> I count both.

To borrow one of your infamous debating tactics: At the moment there
is no reason for me to believe that.
>
> >Are the latter
> >of no value?
>
> No.
>
> >> >> it would be disastrous for "AR".
> >> >
> >> >No it wouldn't.
> >>
> >> There's sure no reason to believe you. There's no reason to
> >> think you believe it either.
> >
> >Whatever.
> >
> >> >> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
> >> >> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
> >> >> out.
> >> >
> >> >We oppose your reasoning because it sucks -
> >>
> >> As yet no one--certainly not you--has explained why it sux to
> >> also consider any positive value for the animals, so to me that's
> >> just another lie. But if you think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
> >
> >What sucks is considering the lives of farm animals as being created
> >by and owed to humans
>
> Why do you think that fact sux?

It is not a fact. The theory sucks because all we have really done
is influenced evolution. Our actions have altered the nature of the
animals in existence but have not caused additional animals to exist.

>
> >even though all we have really done is
> >influenced evolution.
> >
> >> >not because it
> >> >allegedly undermines the AR cause.
> >>
> >> Of course I still believe that's a lie.
> >
> >That is your problem.
> >
> >> >> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
> >> >> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
> >> >> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
> >> >> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
> >> >> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!
> >> >
> >> >I am not opposed to considering that.
> >>
> >> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
> >> encouraging people to consider it sux?
> >
> >What sucks is the idea that influencing evolution = creating lives.
>
> The animals would not live otherwise. Why do you think that fact
> sux? LOL! Why do you think I should agree that the fact sux? If you
> think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.

See above.

"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> dh@. wrote:
>
> > On 17 Oct 2005 10:08:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >
> > >But the numbers of wild animals and numbers of farmed animals are
> > >*not* independant variables. Why do you insist on counting the number
> > >of farmed animals and not the number of wild animals?
> >
> > I count both.
>
> To borrow one of your infamous debating tactics: At the moment there
> is no reason for me to believe that.

12. d...@. Jun 5, 5:58 pm

Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, soc.culture.indian, alt.animals.rights.promotion
From:
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 12:58:34 -0400
Local: Sun, Jun 5 2005 5:58 pm
Subject: The Disappearing Tiger

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 12:01:36 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>The Disappearing Tiger
>By Kim Sengupta
>The Independent - UK
>6-4-5
>....
>The deadly combination of corruption and hunting has so devastated
>the world's population of tigers that conservationists fear the predators
>are facing danger of imminent extinction.

>Just a 100 years ago, there were around 100,000 tigers worldwide.
>The official world population now is between 5,000 and 7,000.

That's more than enough of them.

>But those figures were compiled seven years ago mainly from figures
>supplied by various governments that have since been largely discredited.

>The real figure, according to new research, could be as few as 3,000
>and falling.

Very good. Let's get it down to under 1000, and those only in strictly
controlled situations.

>Unless the trend is reversed, we may see the tigers in India,
>which has 60 per cent of the world population of the animal, disappear
>by 2020, with just a handful remaining in pockets in other countries.

So be it.

http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.an...77c2af11259382

239. Jan 31, 6:04 pm

Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, soc.culture.usa, alt.native, alt.animals.rights.promotion
From: - Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:04:26 GMT
Local: Mon, Jan 31 2005 6:04 pm
Subject: Fw; Save our Nation's Wild Horses

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:39:42 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:42:22 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:

>> >Save our Nation's Wild Horses

>> >UPDATE! Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Ed Whitfield (R-KY)
>> >introduced H.R. 297, that would repeal a rider proposed by Conrad Burns
>> >(R-MT) allowing all wild horses over the age of 10 years and wild horses
>> >who have not been adopted after 3 attempts to be sold by the Bureau of
>> >Land Management (BLM) with no restrictions. In December 2004, an
>> >omnibus appropriations bill passed by Congress contained a rider that
>> >radically reduced protections for wild horses, protections in place for over
>> >30 years since passage of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro
>> >Act.

>> Well it's nice to see that *some* people know when it's time to start
>> killing wild free-roaming horses and burros.

>Start? One hundred years ago an estimated two million mustangs roamed
>the Western range.

Screw that...that's way too many.

>Today, according to BLM statistics there are 36,000
>wild horses and burros, and even that is disputed by preservation groups.

Okay, but it still sounds like there are a bit too many. Maybe there
should only be about 20,000 or something.


http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.an...0af05aae599fca

Day Brown wrote:

> Dave wrote:
> > Day Brown wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> > Brain structure, behavior...
> And, as below, increasingly bio-chemistry, in part the result of DNA
> endowment or challenge.
> >
> >>Rights belong to sentient beings because they are the only ones that
> >>are capable of making rational choices about their best interest.
> > The point of rights in this context is not to enable people to act in
> > what they perceive to be their best interests. It is to protect other
> > conscious entities from harm.
> We still have the problem of who gets to decide what harm is. "Spare the
> rod, spoil the child?"
> >>Kids dont have those rights because they cant make the same rational
> >>choices.
> > So does that mean that if someone harms a child then the best solution
> > is not litigation, but to inform their case workers its time to up
> > the meds?
> As below...
> >>I dont assume that all who post on this issue are sentient. If I see a
> >>man abusing an animal, I know he is not sentient, and would try to tell
> >>his case worker to increase his meds. Criminal charges gratify the
> >>instinct for self-righteousness, but dont really deal with the problem.
>
> > Rehabilitation is far more important than punishment but by locking
> > away those who would abuse others you are protecting potential future
> > vicitms. Animals who can suffer deserve such protection.
>
> And who decides what suffering is?

It is a matter of judgement but that is no excuse for avoiding the
issue.

> There's some evidence that plants
> respond, as if in pain, to being burned, but it happens at such a
> slow rate that you do not feel their pain. That is not the same as
> saying the pain, to a plant, or a tick, or whatever, does not exist.
> So as above, we lock up, or use other such forcible means to prevent
> those we think would cause harm; we should use the same criteria when
> we perceive the risk of harming a child. And indeed, when a mother is
> a drug addict, her children are removed from her custody, not for what
> she has already done, but what the court assumes she will do. so, it
> is litigation, but it is not imprisonment. Punishment of an abusive
> parent is too late; the kid is already traumatized.
>
> Whether for children or animals or other non-sentient beings, the way
> to deal with this is not to look at the harm done, but to consider the
> mental state of the perpetrator, and what steps may be taken to prevent
> traumatic abuse. When you find a boy decapitating insects, you are not
> concerned about the rights of bugs, but the mental pathology in the boy.
>
> The whole issue goes against the common law idea of innocent until
> proven guilty. The culture that steps in too soon, as with political
> correctness, stifles innovation; those that step in too late suffer with
> the contagious psychopathology, where one psychopath traumatizes many
> others. There is no simple solution, but the court/legal system is way
> behind the curve on this, whereas psychiatry and psychology are trying
> to understand the effects of hormone abnormalities and biochemistry that
> tends to produce violence and abuse.

rick wrote:

> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>
> >> > No. We worry about the way animals are treated because we
> >> > are
> >> > capable of compassion for them.
> >>
> >> There is no *we* sunshine, on usenet you speak only for you.
> >>
> >> Well good on you Dave, if you owned an animal I would uphold
> >> your right
> >> to treat it in any way you liked.
> >>
> >> However, if I didn't like what you were doing to the animal
> >> and because
> >> you are a human being, meaning you are probably of some use to
> >> me, and
> >> because I value your life above that of any other living
> >> entity, then I
> >> might try and *peacefully* persuade you to stop whatever it
> >> was you are
> >> doing that caused me my self-inflicted anger.
> >>
> >> I might even consider making you an offer in exchange of you
> >> leaving
> >> the animal alone, eg mowing your lawns, a few dollars perhaps,
> >> rational
> >> argument eg dogs have been known to save human lives, on the
> >> other hand
> >> and probably most likely I would yell at you to stop being
> >> such a
> >> ****en cowardice moron.
> >>
> >> You see Dave, I reckon only rapists murderers robbers
> >> fraudsters of
> >> human beings, scum who cause other human beings harm, deserve
> >> to be in
> >> jail, those who treat animals badly deserve nothing but
> >> contempt,
> >> ridicule, help WHY? because animals dont have rights ONLY
> >> humans do.
> >
> > Why do you consider that animals deserve no protection from
> > harm?
> ========================
> That's not the same as rights, fool.

It is what Mike seems to be implying when he says people who
mistreat animals should not be sent to jail because animals
don't have rights.
>
>
> >
> >> Yea yea I know there are scum on here who claim animals have
> >> rights,
> >> but they only do so because they've heard some other scum say
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does not
> >> make
> >> them *right*.
> >
> > See above.
> ============
> ditto...
> >

Thanks Pearl. I find it very interesting that dhld does not seem
interested
in decent lives for wild animals :-)

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dave wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > No. We worry about the way animals are treated because we
>> >> > are
>> >> > capable of compassion for them.
>> >>
>> >> There is no *we* sunshine, on usenet you speak only for
>> >> you.
>> >>
>> >> Well good on you Dave, if you owned an animal I would
>> >> uphold
>> >> your right
>> >> to treat it in any way you liked.
>> >>
>> >> However, if I didn't like what you were doing to the animal
>> >> and because
>> >> you are a human being, meaning you are probably of some use
>> >> to
>> >> me, and
>> >> because I value your life above that of any other living
>> >> entity, then I
>> >> might try and *peacefully* persuade you to stop whatever it
>> >> was you are
>> >> doing that caused me my self-inflicted anger.
>> >>
>> >> I might even consider making you an offer in exchange of
>> >> you
>> >> leaving
>> >> the animal alone, eg mowing your lawns, a few dollars
>> >> perhaps,
>> >> rational
>> >> argument eg dogs have been known to save human lives, on
>> >> the
>> >> other hand
>> >> and probably most likely I would yell at you to stop being
>> >> such a
>> >> ****en cowardice moron.
>> >>
>> >> You see Dave, I reckon only rapists murderers robbers
>> >> fraudsters of
>> >> human beings, scum who cause other human beings harm,
>> >> deserve
>> >> to be in
>> >> jail, those who treat animals badly deserve nothing but
>> >> contempt,
>> >> ridicule, help WHY? because animals dont have rights ONLY
>> >> humans do.
>> >
>> > Why do you consider that animals deserve no protection from
>> > harm?
>> ========================
>> That's not the same as rights, fool.
>
> It is what Mike seems to be implying when he says people who
> mistreat animals should not be sent to jail because animals
> don't have rights.
========================
I don't see it that way. Penalties can include other things.
Personally I don't see filling up jails that way as being
'efficient', since vegans are always trying the 'efficiency'
argument.



>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Yea yea I know there are scum on here who claim animals
>> >> have
>> >> rights,
>> >> but they only do so because they've heard some other scum
>> >> say
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> Just because 2 billion people say animals have rights does
>> >> not
>> >> make
>> >> them *right*.
>> >
>> > See above.
>> ============
>> ditto...
>> >
>

dh@. wrote:

> On 17 Oct 2005 10:13:22 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 Oct 2005 11:51:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >> >The first point you have to understand is that neither me nor Dutch
> >> >was making a comparison between raising children to pimp and raising
> >> >animals to slaughter. Dutch was simply attempting to use your logic
> >> >to 'justify' the former. Personally I don't think it was necessarily
> >> >the best example to choose
> >>
> >> I doubt that, since this is how "ARAs" want people to feel about it:
> >>
> >> "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational
> >> basis for saying that a human being has special rights."
> >>
> >> so they try to make people think of killing humans when they think
> >> of killing animals. Since you are supporting Dutch I'm forced to
> >> believe you are in on it with him and all other "ARAs".
> >
> >The fact you have to face is that if your rationale for raising animals
> >for meat works for animals than it can also work for humans.
>
> If so, then so does whatever you think about it.

No. There are rationales for raising animals for meat that do not apply
to humans. For example the argument that human lives are of
fundamentally
greater importance than animal lives, the argument that we have a
contract with our fellow human beings as part of our society but
animals can't bargain, the argument that the animal deaths that occur
in vegetable production are really no different from those that occur
in meat production.
I'm not going to defend any of the above. I'm just demonstrating that
there are arguments that allow consumption of animal but not human
flesh. The illogic of the larder is not one of them.

> So what is your view on raising animals for meat?

I don't have a problem with meat as long as the following
conditions are met: the animals are well looked after, raised in an
environmentally responsible fashion and in accordance with my
belief that we should not be depriving any more potential animals
of their natural habitats than we need to.

> >You can
> >whine all you like about others pointing out that fact.

Dave wrote:
>>>Rehabilitation is far more important than punishment but by locking
>>>away those who would abuse others you are protecting potential future
>>>vicitms. Animals who can suffer deserve such protection.
>>
>>And who decides what suffering is?
>
>
> It is a matter of judgement but that is no excuse for avoiding the
> issue.
The question is what the appropriate response is. If I see someone
abusing an animal, I dont call the cops, but ask those who know him,
his family, cleric, social worker or shrink if they know about this
kind of behavior. It is, by its very nature, indicative of a lack
of empathy, and therefore an inability to maintain bonded relationships
with the family... and that tends to lead to violence.

On 18 Oct 2005 08:18:24 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2005 10:08:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >But the numbers of wild animals and numbers of farmed animals are
>> >*not* independant variables. Why do you insist on counting the number
>> >of farmed animals and not the number of wild animals?
>>
>> I count both.
>
>To borrow one of your infamous debating tactics: At the moment there
>is no reason for me to believe that.

I've often asked why we should only promote wildlife in crop fields, instead
of also wildlife and livestock in grazing areas.

http://tinyurl.com/dqarl

>> >Are the latter
>> >of no value?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> >> >> it would be disastrous for "AR".
>> >> >
>> >> >No it wouldn't.
>> >>
>> >> There's sure no reason to believe you. There's no reason to
>> >> think you believe it either.
>> >
>> >Whatever.
>> >
>> >> >> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
>> >> >> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
>> >> >> out.
>> >> >
>> >> >We oppose your reasoning because it sucks -
>> >>
>> >> As yet no one--certainly not you--has explained why it sux to
>> >> also consider any positive value for the animals, so to me that's
>> >> just another lie. But if you think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
>> >
>> >What sucks is considering the lives of farm animals as being created
>> >by and owed to humans
>>
>> Why do you think that fact sux?
>
>It is not a fact. The theory sucks because all we have really done
>is influenced evolution. Our actions have altered the nature of the
>animals in existence but have not caused additional animals to exist.

I don't believe that. I believe more animals experience life, and
certainly that more large animals do. And even if not, we still provide
life for the billions of them that we provide life for, regardless of how
badly you despise the fact.

>> >even though all we have really done is
>> >influenced evolution.
>> >
>> >> >not because it
>> >> >allegedly undermines the AR cause.
>> >>
>> >> Of course I still believe that's a lie.
>> >
>> >That is your problem.
>> >
>> >> >> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
>> >> >> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
>> >> >> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
>> >> >> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
>> >> >> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >I am not opposed to considering that.
>> >>
>> >> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
>> >> encouraging people to consider it sux?
>> >
>> >What sucks is the idea that influencing evolution = creating lives.
>>
>> The animals would not live otherwise. Why do you think that fact
>> sux? LOL! Why do you think I should agree that the fact sux? If you
>> think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
>
>See above.

You have yet to EXPLAIN why recognition of the fact that billions of
animals live because we raise them for food, sux. No one has done it
yet, and you certainly are no exception.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:44:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On 17 Oct 2005 10:08:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
>>>> encouraging people to consider it sux?
>>>
>>>What sucks is the idea that influencing evolution = creating lives.
>>
>> The animals would not live otherwise.
>
>You still didn't "create life", particularly not by eating a Big Mac.
>
>>Why do you think that fact
>> sux? LOL! Why do you think I should agree that the fact sux? If you
>> think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
>
>Arranging animal sex so that they are born in captivity so we can kill and
>eat them is not some selfless act of "providing life", it's manipulating
>nature to serve our ends. There's nothing wrong with it,

In some cases there is plenty wrong with it. To just say there is nothing
wrong with any of it, or nothing good about any of it, is dishonest and
totally inconsiderate of the animals...and sick...and very very stupid.

>but to claim that
>it's a moral achievement is sick, and stupid.

On 18 Oct 2005 18:46:50 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>Thanks Pearl. I find it very interesting that dhld does not seem
>interested
>in decent lives for wild animals :-)

Why do you believe there can never be too many wild animals?

On 18 Oct 2005 19:03:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2005 10:13:22 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 12 Oct 2005 11:51:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >The first point you have to understand is that neither me nor Dutch
>> >> >was making a comparison between raising children to pimp and raising
>> >> >animals to slaughter. Dutch was simply attempting to use your logic
>> >> >to 'justify' the former. Personally I don't think it was necessarily
>> >> >the best example to choose
>> >>
>> >> I doubt that, since this is how "ARAs" want people to feel about it:
>> >>
>> >> "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational
>> >> basis for saying that a human being has special rights."
>> >>
>> >> so they try to make people think of killing humans when they think
>> >> of killing animals. Since you are supporting Dutch I'm forced to
>> >> believe you are in on it with him and all other "ARAs".
>> >
>> >The fact you have to face is that if your rationale for raising animals
>> >for meat works for animals than it can also work for humans.
>>
>> If so, then so does whatever you think about it.
>
>No. There are rationales for raising animals for meat that do not apply
>to humans. For example the argument that human lives are of
>fundamentally
>greater importance than animal lives,

So by your ratinale we should raise humans for meat instead of
animals, since according to you human lives are of fundamentally
greater importance than animal lives.

>the argument that we have a
>contract with our fellow human beings as part of our society but
>animals can't bargain, the argument that the animal deaths that occur
>in vegetable production are really no different from those that occur
>in meat production.
>I'm not going to defend any of the above. I'm just demonstrating that
>there are arguments that allow consumption of animal but not human
>flesh. The illogic of the larder is not one of them.
>
>> So what is your view on raising animals for meat?
>
>I don't have a problem with meat as long as the following
>conditions are met: the animals are well looked after, raised in an
>environmentally responsible fashion and in accordance with my
>belief that we should not be depriving any more potential animals
>of their natural habitats than we need to.

So according to you, if your rationale for raising animals for meat
works for animals than it can also work for humans provided they
are well looked after, raised in an environmentally responsible fashion
and in accordance with your belief that we should not be depriving
any more potential animals of their natural habitats than we need to.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:32:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and that
>>>> some
>>>> of them don't.
>>>
>>>Please answer a few questions
>>
>> At this time I will answer the first one and the last two.
>
>Why don't you answer all of them?

Maybe I will some day, if you ever answer what I've been
asking you for a while.

[...]
>>>Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all".
>>>Which
>>>is better?
>>
>> Neither.
>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> Because they are both wrong.
>
>Why?

Because some do and some do not.

>According to what authority, what standard of measurement?
>
>> You're insistence that most people believe "all" animals are
>> ""benefitting"
>> and not benefitting" is a lie.
>
>Give evidence to support your argument.

No one believes both. Here's a bonus fact for you:
Realistic people believe neither. But you can't understand that
quality of life determines whether or not life has a positive value
for an individual being, so you can't understand that some benefit
and some do not. LOL...so it's really funny to imagine you tring to
understand that whether or not life is a benefit can and often does
change...sometimes more than once...during the course of a
being's life. Don't try to understand that Dutch. It's too much for you
to ever grasp.

"Day Brown" > wrote
> Dave wrote:
>>>>Rehabilitation is far more important than punishment but by locking
>>>>away those who would abuse others you are protecting potential future
>>>>vicitms. Animals who can suffer deserve such protection.
>>>
>>>And who decides what suffering is?
>>
>>
>> It is a matter of judgement but that is no excuse for avoiding the
>> issue.
> The question is what the appropriate response is. If I see someone
> abusing an animal, I dont call the cops, but ask those who know him,
> his family, cleric, social worker or shrink if they know about this
> kind of behavior.

No you don't, but even if you did, what are they going to do about it? He's
not likely to voluntarily get the help he needs.

> It is, by its very nature, indicative of a lack
> of empathy, and therefore an inability to maintain bonded relationships
> with the family... and that tends to lead to violence.

That can be said of any form of violence. There's no reason to not treat it
as a criminal act no matter how you look at it. If the person gets into the
criminal justice system there is a better chance for him to get assessment
and treatment mandated as part of his sentence.

<dh@.> wrote

>>Arranging animal sex so that they are born in captivity so we can kill and
>>eat them is not some selfless act of "providing life", it's manipulating
>>nature to serve our ends. There's nothing wrong with it,
>
> In some cases there is plenty wrong with it.

Which cases? Do any of those "plenty wrong" instances happen in *your*
personal food chain? If so, what are you going to do about it?

> To just say there is nothing
> wrong with any of it,

My statement means that there is nothing wrong with *Arranging animal sex so
that they are born in captivity so we can kill and eat them*
in_and_of_itself. It doesn't mean that it may not involve some act of abuse,
which in_and_of_itself might be wrong.

> or nothing good about any of it,

What is "good about it" is that it provides products. The lives of those
animals do not reflect any moral glory on you, if that's what you are
hoping.

> is dishonest and
> totally inconsiderate of the animals...and sick...and very very stupid.

You are equivocating as usual.


>>but to claim that
>>it's a moral achievement is sick, and stupid.
>

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:32:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and that
>>>>> some
>>>>> of them don't.
>>>>
>>>>Please answer a few questions
>>>
>>> At this time I will answer the first one and the last two.
>>
>>Why don't you answer all of them?
>
> Maybe I will some day,

No you won't, because the answers tear at the heart of your equivocation.

> if you ever answer what I've been
> asking you for a while.

I've answered every single stupid question you've ever asked. Most of your
questions are leading, circular, and loaded, but I answer them anyway.

> [...]
>>>>Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all".
>>>>Which
>>>>is better?
>>>
>>> Neither.
>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>> Because they are both wrong.
>>
>>Why?
>
> Because some do and some do not.

According to whose measurement? Without an answer to this your argument
falls apart.


>>According to what authority, what standard of measurement?
>>
>>> You're insistence that most people believe "all" animals are
>>> ""benefitting"
>>> and not benefitting" is a lie.
>>
>>Give evidence to support your argument.
>
> No one believes both.

Vegans believe that *no* animal should be raised for food, so they consume
*no* meat.

Most people eat the food on the menu or buy from the market with *no* idea
how that animal was treated. They simply give the matter little or no
thought.

Both groups actions are consistent with their underlying ideas about
animals.

You have this *other idea* about "some do, some don't", so please, explain
how you put this knowledge into action in your life.

Explain how your actions are consistent with your underlying ideas about
animals.

[..]

Dutch wrote:
> > Agreed, and who gets to decide *which* animals have rights?
>
> Humans,...........

You dosey pratt *I* am a human and *I* haven't decided anything of the
sort?

..... It is
> correct and understandable in language to say for example that pets have a
> right to be protected from neglect and abuse.

ONLY ***YOUR*** animals MIGHT Dutch, that's IF that is what ***YOU***
desire for ****YOUR**** ****en animals, now that IS really easy to
understand.

Animals dont have rights Dutch, now that's really easy to understand
because all you have to do is watch a lion eat a Zebra, a cat play with
and then eat a mouse.

> That right is held against
> their owner and caregiver.

Nah YOUR ilk INVENTED that nonsense Dutch, NOT because you like animals
but because you HATE humans.

And that is even easier to understand because you are a dozey ****en
socialist.

>
> Kids *do* have all the fundamental rights, even though they don't understand
> them.

You dozey pratt, kids have rights (a) because they are the kids of
adults whose childen they are and (b) because they also have the
potential to understand them and uphold them.

Animals dont have rights Dutch and never will they ever undertstand
them, just ask a mouse to check the *truth* of that statement?



Michael Gordge

NOTE People like Dutch who claim they grant rights for humans ARE the
scum who will also claim a right to take them away.

REALITY, Rights can ONLY ever be violated.

dh@. wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2005 08:18:24 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 Oct 2005 10:08:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >But the numbers of wild animals and numbers of farmed animals are
> >> >*not* independant variables. Why do you insist on counting the number
> >> >of farmed animals and not the number of wild animals?
> >>
> >> I count both.
> >
> >To borrow one of your infamous debating tactics: At the moment there
> >is no reason for me to believe that.
>
> I've often asked why we should only promote wildlife in crop fields, instead
> of also wildlife and livestock in grazing areas.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dqarl
>
> >> >Are the latter
> >> >of no value?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> >> >> it would be disastrous for "AR".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No it wouldn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's sure no reason to believe you. There's no reason to
> >> >> think you believe it either.
> >> >
> >> >Whatever.
> >> >
> >> >> >> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
> >> >> >> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
> >> >> >> out.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We oppose your reasoning because it sucks -
> >> >>
> >> >> As yet no one--certainly not you--has explained why it sux to
> >> >> also consider any positive value for the animals, so to me that's
> >> >> just another lie. But if you think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
> >> >
> >> >What sucks is considering the lives of farm animals as being created
> >> >by and owed to humans
> >>
> >> Why do you think that fact sux?
> >
> >It is not a fact. The theory sucks because all we have really done
> >is influenced evolution. Our actions have altered the nature of the
> >animals in existence but have not caused additional animals to exist.
>
> I don't believe that. I believe more animals experience life, and
> certainly that more large animals do.

You are deluding yourself.

> And even if not, we still provide
> life for the billions of them that we provide life for, regardless of how
> badly you despise the fact.

Animals are perfectly capable of breeding and reproducing in the wild.
We don't provide life for animals. We merely control their breeding and
their food supply.

> >> >even though all we have really done is
> >> >influenced evolution.
> >> >
> >> >> >not because it
> >> >> >allegedly undermines the AR cause.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course I still believe that's a lie.
> >> >
> >> >That is your problem.
> >> >
> >> >> >> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
> >> >> >> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
> >> >> >> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
> >> >> >> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
> >> >> >> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I am not opposed to considering that.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
> >> >> encouraging people to consider it sux?
> >> >
> >> >What sucks is the idea that influencing evolution = creating lives.
> >>
> >> The animals would not live otherwise. Why do you think that fact
> >> sux? LOL! Why do you think I should agree that the fact sux? If you
> >> think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
> >
> >See above.
>
> You have yet to EXPLAIN why recognition of the fact that billions of
> animals live because we raise them for food, sux. No one has done it
> yet, and you certainly are no exception.

I have explained it. You just don't understand.

dh@. wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2005 19:03:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 Oct 2005 10:13:22 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 12 Oct 2005 11:51:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >The first point you have to understand is that neither me nor Dutch
> >> >> >was making a comparison between raising children to pimp and raising
> >> >> >animals to slaughter. Dutch was simply attempting to use your logic
> >> >> >to 'justify' the former. Personally I don't think it was necessarily
> >> >> >the best example to choose
> >> >>
> >> >> I doubt that, since this is how "ARAs" want people to feel about it:
> >> >>
> >> >> "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational
> >> >> basis for saying that a human being has special rights."
> >> >>
> >> >> so they try to make people think of killing humans when they think
> >> >> of killing animals. Since you are supporting Dutch I'm forced to
> >> >> believe you are in on it with him and all other "ARAs".
> >> >
> >> >The fact you have to face is that if your rationale for raising animals
> >> >for meat works for animals than it can also work for humans.
> >>
> >> If so, then so does whatever you think about it.
> >
> >No. There are rationales for raising animals for meat that do not apply
> >to humans. For example the argument that human lives are of
> >fundamentally
> >greater importance than animal lives,
>
> So by your ratinale we should raise humans for meat instead of
> animals, since according to you human lives are of fundamentally
> greater importance than animal lives.

If you consider human lives as more important than animal lives
and use the Illogic of the larder to justify raising animals for
food then you should fully endorse the raising of humans for food
if you wish to be consistent. I don't promote the illogic of the
larder so your conclusion is invalid.

> >the argument that we have a
> >contract with our fellow human beings as part of our society but
> >animals can't bargain, the argument that the animal deaths that occur
> >in vegetable production are really no different from those that occur
> >in meat production.
> >I'm not going to defend any of the above. I'm just demonstrating that
> >there are arguments that allow consumption of animal but not human
> >flesh. The illogic of the larder is not one of them.
> >
> >> So what is your view on raising animals for meat?
> >
> >I don't have a problem with meat as long as the following
> >conditions are met: the animals are well looked after, raised in an
> >environmentally responsible fashion and in accordance with my
> >belief that we should not be depriving any more potential animals
> >of their natural habitats than we need to.
>
> So according to you, if your rationale for raising animals for meat
> works for animals than it can also work for humans provided they
> are well looked after, raised in an environmentally responsible fashion
> and in accordance with your belief that we should not be depriving
> any more potential animals of their natural habitats than we need to.

Non-sequiter. If you use the illogic of the larder to promote the view
that raising animals for meat is morally superior to veganism because
you
are creating animal lives then the only way I can see for you to
disagree
with the claim that raising humans for food is a good thing is to claim
that
the human lives, that would only exist if we raised them for food, are
of
trivial value compared with the animal lives that exist because we
raise them
for food. I haven't promoted any rationale to claim moral credit for
consuming
animal products, only that any activity be considered morally
acceptable
unless someone manages to present a convincing argument that it is not.

dh@. wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2005 18:46:50 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >Thanks Pearl. I find it very interesting that dhld does not seem
> >interested
> >in decent lives for wild animals :-)
>
> Why do you believe there can never be too many wild animals?

There can be too many wild animals. What harm are the wild horses
doing? Is it just that they are competing with farmed animals
for land and you consider the lives of farmed animals more
important but can't bring yourself to admit it?

On 20 Oct 2005 04:12:09 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2005 08:18:24 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 Oct 2005 10:08:32 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >But the numbers of wild animals and numbers of farmed animals are
>> >> >*not* independant variables. Why do you insist on counting the number
>> >> >of farmed animals and not the number of wild animals?
>> >>
>> >> I count both.
>> >
>> >To borrow one of your infamous debating tactics: At the moment there
>> >is no reason for me to believe that.
>>
>> I've often asked why we should only promote wildlife in crop fields, instead
>> of also wildlife and livestock in grazing areas.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/dqarl
>>
>> >> >Are the latter
>> >> >of no value?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> >> >> it would be disastrous for "AR".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No it wouldn't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's sure no reason to believe you. There's no reason to
>> >> >> think you believe it either.
>> >> >
>> >> >Whatever.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> And of course I believe "ARAs" believe it too, and that
>> >> >> >> is why Goo, Dutch, you, and all other "ARAs" hate what I point
>> >> >> >> out.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We oppose your reasoning because it sucks -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As yet no one--certainly not you--has explained why it sux to
>> >> >> also consider any positive value for the animals, so to me that's
>> >> >> just another lie. But if you think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
>> >> >
>> >> >What sucks is considering the lives of farm animals as being created
>> >> >by and owed to humans
>> >>
>> >> Why do you think that fact sux?
>> >
>> >It is not a fact. The theory sucks because all we have really done
>> >is influenced evolution. Our actions have altered the nature of the
>> >animals in existence but have not caused additional animals to exist.
>>
>> I don't believe that. I believe more animals experience life, and
>> certainly that more large animals do.
>
>You are deluding yourself.

Of course we have absolutely no reason to believe that.

>> And even if not, we still provide
>> life for the billions of them that we provide life for, regardless of how
>> badly you despise the fact.
>
>Animals are perfectly capable of breeding and reproducing in the wild.

That is meaningless in regards to whether or not it's cruel to animals
when we raise them for food.

>We don't provide life for animals.

You ingnorant people really do disgust me. But by now you've
convinced me that you're not as ignorant as you pretend. You've
convinced me that you're just another liar.

>We merely control their breeding and
>their food supply.
>
>> >> >even though all we have really done is
>> >> >influenced evolution.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >not because it
>> >> >> >allegedly undermines the AR cause.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course I still believe that's a lie.
>> >> >
>> >> >That is your problem.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> *IF!* you're not one of Dutch's fellow "ARAs" trying to
>> >> >> >> support him, I believe you have somehow been fooled by him,
>> >> >> >> but I seriously doubt that. There is NO reason why anyone who
>> >> >> >> is in favor of decent AW, should be opposed to considering
>> >> >> >> that decent lives have a positive value for the animals! NONE!!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I am not opposed to considering that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you're not opposed to considering it, why do you think that
>> >> >> encouraging people to consider it sux?
>> >> >
>> >> >What sucks is the idea that influencing evolution = creating lives.
>> >>
>> >> The animals would not live otherwise. Why do you think that fact
>> >> sux? LOL! Why do you think I should agree that the fact sux? If you
>> >> think you can EXPLAIN it, please try.
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> You have yet to EXPLAIN why recognition of the fact that billions of
>> animals live because we raise them for food, sux. No one has done it
>> yet, and you certainly are no exception.
>
>I have explained it.

LOL. That is the OLDEST trick I'm aware of. You have not explained
it, you can not explain it...

>You just don't understand.

.....so you dishonestly pretend that you already have, in your cowardly
attempt to slither away from ever doing so.

If you want to prove that you have explained it, then post any
example(s) of the explanation. Your failure to do so will be proof that
you never have.

On 20 Oct 2005 04:25:46 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>If you use the illogic of the larder to promote the view
>that raising animals for meat is morally superior to veganism because
>you
>are creating animal lives then the only way I can see for you to
>disagree
>with the claim that raising humans for food is a good thing is to claim
>that
>the human lives, that would only exist if we raised them for food, are
>of
>trivial value compared with the animal lives that exist because we
>raise them
>for food.

It's certainly no surprise that you can only think of something so
stupid as that. You would never consider how the quality of life
factors into it. You would never consider how much more impractical
it would be. You would never consider how human would suffer from
the mental burden that they will be killed, UNLIKE animals who can
not know. Your hero Salt even promotes the idea that they do know
in his fantasly know as: The Logic of the Imaginary Talking "AR" Pig.

>I haven't promoted any rationale to claim moral credit for
>consuming
>animal products,

LOL. That may be the only honest thing you'll ever write to me.

>only that any activity be considered morally
>acceptable
>unless someone manages to present a convincing argument that it is not.

Good. Then you should have no problem with people giving the
animals' lives as much or more consideration than their deaths.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:25:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:32:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and that
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> of them don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please answer a few questions
>>>>
>>>> At this time I will answer the first one and the last two.
>>>
>>>Why don't you answer all of them?
>>
>> Maybe I will some day,
>
>No you won't, because the answers tear at the heart of your equivocation.
>
>> if you ever answer what I've been
>> asking you for a while.
>
>I've answered every single stupid question you've ever asked. Most of your
>questions are leading, circular, and loaded, but I answer them anyway.
>
>> [...]
>>>>>Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all".
>>>>>Which
>>>>>is better?
>>>>
>>>> Neither.
>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because they are both wrong.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> Because some do and some do not.
>
>According to whose measurement?

Mine, not yours. You have no "measurement". As you said,
your line is at "none". LOL...I couldn't use your "measurement"
even if I wanted to, because to you there is "none".

On 20 Oct 2005 04:28:10 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2005 18:46:50 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks Pearl. I find it very interesting that dhld does not seem
>> >interested
>> >in decent lives for wild animals :-)
>>
>> Why do you believe there can never be too many wild animals?
>
>There can be too many wild animals. What harm are the wild horses
>doing?

I don't know. What harm are they doing?

>Is it just that they are competing with farmed animals
>for land and you consider the lives of farmed animals more
>important but can't bring yourself to admit it?

Maybe. How much competition should they be allowed
to be, and why?

Dutch wrote:
>>The question is what the appropriate response is. If I see someone
>>abusing an animal, I dont call the cops, but ask those who know him,
>>his family, cleric, social worker or shrink if they know about this
>>kind of behavior.
> No you don't, but even if you did, what are they going to do about it? He's
> not likely to voluntarily get the help he needs.
>>It is, by its very nature, indicative of a lack
>>of empathy, and therefore an inability to maintain bonded relationships
>>with the family... and that tends to lead to violence.
> That can be said of any form of violence. There's no reason to not treat it
> as a criminal act no matter how you look at it. If the person gets into the
> criminal justice system there is a better chance for him to get assessment
> and treatment mandated as part of his sentence.
I dunno what its like where you live. I'm 66 now, usta work in mental
health, and I still know women who could have your ass snatched off
the street, dragged before a judge, and *you* havta prove to him that
you are sane. And when they tell him what you've been doing to animals,
it aint a case of whether you wanna take your meds or not. They will
lock your ass up and the orderlies will hold you down while they shoot
you up. Nobody talks about this, they like to keep a low profile.

State and local governments are coming to realize that meds are lots
cheaper than prison. Certainly, there are lotsa reasons for violence,
and lotsa responses to it. But when children are at risk, they snatch
your ass first, and you havta prove that you are no risk to them to be
released on your own recognizance. "Innocent until proven guilty" is
no longer the defacto standard. But nobody talks about that either.

There is a rapidly growing body of DNA markers and biochemical causes
for "criminal activity". Those states which recognize this and use the
mental health system to deal with it will see much lower prison costs,
much lower rates of domestic abuse, and much lower costs of welfare.

It aint upta me, I'm just reporting how the bureaucracy thinks.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:25:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:32:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> of them don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please answer a few questions
>>>>>
>>>>> At this time I will answer the first one and the last two.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you answer all of them?
>>>
>>> Maybe I will some day,
>>
>>No you won't, because the answers tear at the heart of your equivocation.

You will never answer direct questions, you can't. You just clamp your hands
over your ears and continue to make your silly, asinine proclamations.

>>
>>> if you ever answer what I've been
>>> asking you for a while.
>>
>>I've answered every single stupid question you've ever asked. Most of your
>>questions are leading, circular, and loaded, but I answer them anyway.
>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>>Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all".
>>>>>>Which
>>>>>>is better?
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they are both wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>> Because some do and some do not.
>>
>>According to whose measurement?
>
> Mine, not yours.

When do you do your measurements? What are the results? How do these
measurements guide your choices?

You'll never answer these pertinent questions, because you're a silly,
hollow, beaten hick.

>You have no "measurement". As you said,
> your line is at "none". LOL...I couldn't use your "measurement"
> even if I wanted to, because to you there is "none".

Brilliant work. Go back to shovelling shit, it's all you're good for.

Dutch wrote:
.... If the person gets into the
> criminal justice system there is a better chance for him to get assessment
> and treatment mandated as part of his sentence.


**** you're an evil bit of scum you are Dutch, get assessed and treated
according to what ****en standard, you retard?



Michael Gordge

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:11:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:25:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:32:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> of them don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please answer a few questions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this time I will answer the first one and the last two.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why don't you answer all of them?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I will some day,
>>>
>>>No you won't, because the answers tear at the heart of your equivocation.
>
>You will never answer direct questions,

That's a lie.

>you can't.

That's a lie.

>You just clamp your hands
>over your ears and continue to make your silly, asinine proclamations.

I point out things that create horrible cognitive dissonance in you,
which causes you to lie and act like a total ass. If there's a worthwhile
brain in that dried up skull of yours, it is poisoned by the extreme feelings
of discomfort the facts I point out cause in you. Maybe it's Goo's fault
to a large degree, but it's still YOURS for continuing on like you are. You
do want to appreciate the animals' lives, but for some reason you won't
allow youself to do it. That is YOUR fault Dutch.

>>>> if you ever answer what I've been
>>>> asking you for a while.
>>>
>>>I've answered every single stupid question you've ever asked. Most of your
>>>questions are leading, circular, and loaded, but I answer them anyway.
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at "all".
>>>>>>>Which
>>>>>>>is better?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they are both wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because some do and some do not.
>>>
>>>According to whose measurement?
>>
>> Mine, not yours.
>
>When do you do your measurements?

Whenever I think about them.

>What are the results?

They vary.

>How do these
>measurements guide your choices?

I buy cage free eggs.

>You'll never answer these pertinent questions,

That's a lie.

>because you're a silly,
>hollow, beaten hick.

I just present the truth, and regardless of what you attempt
you can never beat that, you poor ignorant slob.

>>You have no "measurement". As you said,
>> your line is at "none". LOL...I couldn't use your "measurement"
>> even if I wanted to, because to you there is "none".
>
>Brilliant work.

I'm sure that was a bang to your already throbbing mind. But
now that the poor little thing has had time for some of the swelling
to go down, would you care to show me wrong by explaining how
YOU measure which animals benefit from farming and which do
not? BANG! No, your all swolen up with the pain of dissonance
again...but even if you weren't, to you there still would be "none".

>Go back to shovelling shit, it's all you're good for.

I'm good for trying to spoon feed you guys facts that you
don't want to consider. But you won't even smell them. You like
the taste of shit far better, so you make up shit about ethical
browny points, and pigs who know they will be slaughtered, and
children who know they are sex slaves, and shit like that so you
don't have to taste the truth of the facts I point out. And it's your
own fault. The up side is: you could change. The down side is:
you probably won't.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:11:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:25:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:32:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:44:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have learned that some farm animals benefit from farming and
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> of them don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Please answer a few questions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this time I will answer the first one and the last two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why don't you answer all of them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I will some day,
>>>>
>>>>No you won't, because the answers tear at the heart of your
>>>>equivocation.
>>
>>You will never answer direct questions,
>
> That's a lie.

" Maybe I will some day,"

>>you can't.
>
> That's a lie.

Prove it.

>>You just clamp your hands
>>over your ears and continue to make your silly, asinine proclamations.
>
> I point out things that

You attribute illegitimate meanings to things

> create horrible cognitive dissonance in you,
> which causes you to lie and act like a total ass. If there's a worthwhile
> brain in that dried up skull of yours, it is poisoned by the extreme
> feelings
> of discomfort the facts I point out cause in you. Maybe it's Goo's fault
> to a large degree, but it's still YOURS for continuing on like you are.
> You
> do want to appreciate the animals' lives, but for some reason you won't
> allow youself to do it. That is YOUR fault Dutch.

Taking credit for their lives while you eat them is NOT "appreciation".

>>>>> if you ever answer what I've been
>>>>> asking you for a while.
>>>>
>>>>I've answered every single stupid question you've ever asked. Most of
>>>>your
>>>>questions are leading, circular, and loaded, but I answer them anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>Vegans have a line, it's at "none". Most people have a line at
>>>>>>>>"all".
>>>>>>>>Which
>>>>>>>>is better?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they are both wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because some do and some do not.
>>>>
>>>>According to whose measurement?
>>>
>>> Mine, not yours.
>>
>>When do you do your measurements?
>
> Whenever I think about them.

Those aren't measurements.


>>What are the results?
>
> They vary.

What are they?

>>How do these
>>measurements guide your choices?
>
> I buy cage free eggs.

Big ****ing deal, what else?

>>You'll never answer these pertinent questions,
>
> That's a lie.

"Maybe I will some day,"
>
>>because you're a silly,
>>hollow, beaten hick.
>
> I just present the truth, and regardless of what you attempt
> you can never beat that, you poor ignorant slob.

You don't present the truth, you stupid hick. You present shit sophistry.


Go back to shovelling shit, it's all you're good for.

wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> .... If the person gets into the
>
>>criminal justice system there is a better chance for him to get assessment
>>and treatment mandated as part of his sentence.

> **** you're an evil bit of scum you are Dutch, get assessed and treated
> according to what ****en standard, you retard?
Ad hominum is evidence of mental dysfunction.
As the evidence of DNA and brain structure- and biochemistry come in, we
will move away from the "evil" characterization of behavior, and see it
for what it really is: psychological pathology.

which may be terminal. In any case, the treatment'll be dispassionate.
The standard will include civil discourse, and the ability to respond to
disagreement without being disagreeable.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:35:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>Taking credit for their lives while you eat them is NOT "appreciation".

LOL. There's no way that you could know whether or not it
ever includes appreciation, because you can't comprehend
having any appreciation for their lives other than your own
selfish interests...like your imaginary moral browny points.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:35:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>Taking credit for their lives while you eat them is NOT "appreciation".
>
> LOL. There's no way that you could know whether or not it
> ever includes appreciation, because you can't comprehend
> having any appreciation for their lives other than your own
> selfish interests...like your imaginary moral browny points.

So are you now abandoning the idea that we do something admirable by causing
animals to "experience life" which offsets the fact that we kill them?

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
> ... If the person gets into the
>> criminal justice system there is a better chance for him to get
>> assessment
>> and treatment mandated as part of his sentence.
>
>
> **** you're an evil bit of scum you are Dutch, get assessed and treated
> according to what ****en standard, you retard?

The standard that says it is wrong to abuse animals, what else?

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:25:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:35:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>Taking credit for their lives while you eat them is NOT "appreciation".
>>
>> LOL. There's no way that you could know whether or not it
>> ever includes appreciation, because you can't comprehend
>> having any appreciation for their lives other than your own
>> selfish interests...like your imaginary moral browny points.
>
>So are you now abandoning the idea that we do something admirable by causing
>animals to "experience life" which offsets the fact that we kill them?

Hell no. I'm pointing out there's no way you could know if it does
or not. How could you? Answer: you would have to overcome your
horrible cd (cognitive dissonance), which it appears you will never do.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:19:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:25:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:35:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Taking credit for their lives while you eat them is NOT "appreciation".
>>>
>>> LOL. There's no way that you could know whether or not it
>>> ever includes appreciation, because you can't comprehend
>>> having any appreciation for their lives other than your own
>>> selfish interests...like your imaginary moral browny points.
>>
>>So are you now abandoning the idea that we do something admirable by causing
>>animals to "experience life" which offsets the fact that we kill them?
>
> Hell no. I'm pointing out there's no way you could know if it does
>or not. How could you? Answer: you would have to overcome your
>horrible cd (cognitive dissonance), which it appears you will never do.

I'll continue with this Dutch, to show a friend what cd is and how it
distorts a person's view of reality. You are certainly a classic example,
so I'll point it out clearly for both of you...almost certainly more to my
friend's benefit than it can ever be for your feverish, twisted mind.

Fact: You are insanely opposed to considering the fact that raising
animals for food provides life for billions of them.
Fact: You are insanely opposed to seeing it pointed out that decent
Animal Welfare would provide decent lives for billions of animals,
while the gross mi$nomer "Animal Rights" would make doing so
impossible.
Fact: You are insanely opposed to the above facts, because they
conflict with whatever it is you WANT to believe.
Fact: The conflict between the facts that I point out and what you
WANT to believe causes great mental discomfort for your
twisted little mind, and that discomfort is called cognitive
dissonance.
Fact: In order to relieve cd, people do absurd things in an attempt
to relieve the discomfort. In your case you take refuge in
imaginary things that help you pretend the facts are insignificant
...things like what a pig *might!* say if it could talk and knew of
its position, grotesque comparisons of raising animals for food
and raising children to eat or use as sex slaves, and of course
your greatest refuge is your imaginary moral browny points.
Fact: The pureness of your selfishness prevents you from considering
the animals and what *they* get from the arrangement, which
contributes greatly to your twisted view of reality that is also
contaminated by your futile but obsessive attempts to relieve
your cd by taking refuge in absurd fantasy.

Here is something that you wrote but do not understand: "The method
of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative
value to the animal." By now it's clear that you only copied something that
someone else told you--most likely me--and you wish you could understand,
but can't. The only reason it appears you wish you could understand it is:
You presented the idea for some reason. It is clear that you can't understand
the concept because of the following:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

Please answer a few questions about the line between animals that benefit
and those that don't.
[...]
Who decides where the line is drawn between animals "benefitting" and not
benefitting? Surely the only person who could do it is the individual.
[...]
Vegans have a line, it's at "none".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Here is where your thinking again is twisted: YOU/"ARAs" believe the line
is at none...you believe no farm animals benefit from farming, showing that:

a. YOU/"ARAs" can't understand how life could have positive value for them.
b. Since YOU/"ARAs" believe that no farm animals benefit from farming, you
obviously have absolutely no business telling anyone else which do benefit
and which do not.

Even though you can't comprehend how any farm animals could benefit
from farming--so are obviously in *no!* position to advise anyone else about
the issue--you still want to dictate what other people think by imposing your
selfish restriction that we never consider the lives of the animals. Your
insane restriction--which you use somehow in your attempt to relieve your
own horrible cognitive dissonance--makes it impossible to realistically think
about human influence on animals.