On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:37:30 -0400, "larrylook" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:49:22 -0400, "larrylook" > wrote:
>>
>>>Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
>>>eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
>>>find this terribly distasteful.
>>>
>>>But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less
>>>and
>>>have good intentions.
>>
>> I've noticed that often when the truth is pointed out, vegans will lie
>> about it.
>
>The truth regarding what?

Human influence on animals.

>That the myth of the grass fed cow

That's one.

>(GFC) is
>correct? Most people are eating factory farmed meat and could care less.
>So what the vegetarian is doing is an impovement and creates less CD's.
>
>>
>>>Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
>>>out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the killing and
>>>should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to minimize
>>>death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly
>>>about the GFC label and it's validity
>>
>> If Derek cared he would encourage people to find out if the animals had
>> been fed grain, and how much, etc. Instead he dishonestly pretends that
>> grass raised beef is not available, because he doesn't care and does NOT
>> want people to deliberately contribute to fewer cds by eating grass raised
>> animal products. I know it. You know it. And I know that you know it.
>
>If Derek cares,

If 2goo cared about animals he would lie less, and very possibly not at all.
But he does lie, and he lies about animals, and he does it all the time.

>he would point out to people here that if they eat
>vegetarian they are killing less, since you guys are telling them that
>vegetarianism doesn't accomplish anything and they should eat GFC's to
>reduce CD's. But this is impractical since everyone is busy making a living
>and can't be researching everything on their plate. They need some basic
>guidelines to follow. They need "Ethical eating for Dummies".
>
>>
>>>would certainly matter greatly to the
>>>vegetarian.
>>
>> Here are some "vegetarian" products which contain egg whites,
>> contributing
>> to the cds involved with raising chickens as well as those involved with
>> the
>> grain in the products, and also contributing to battery farming:
>>
>> Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
>> and Prosage Patties
>>
>> Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties
>>
>> Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties
>>
>> Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets
>>
>> Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties, Chick Patties,
>> Chik'n Nuggets, Corn Dogs
>
>Explain to me how egg whites makes any difference? I really don't
>understand?

It's hard to believe you could be as inconsiderate as you claim
to be.

>Explain it to me like I'm a 4 year old please.

They are contributing to the cds involved with raising chickens AS
WELL AS the cds involved with the grain used in making the products.
They are also contributing to battery farming laying hens, which some
of us feel is a poor method of keeping chickens.

>>>So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
>>>death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
>>>unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC.
>>
>> It's for people who actually care about human influence
>> on animals that the info is really posted. We see that Etter
>> cares more about livestock than any vegans posting to
>> these ngs, and spends most of his posts pointing out how
>> vegans are lying about things related to human influence
>> on animals, afaik.
>
>It's not very clear to me that Rick would give a darn about what's on his
>dinner plate (in terms of ethics).

It's very clear that human influence on animals is much more significant
to him than it is to you, and almost certainly than it ever could be to you.
If it ever could be significant to you, how do you think that could possibly
come about?

>It's not an expressed goal of his. It's
>not clear to me that if he found out veal cows weren't treated well in his
>area he's stop eating them, or if chicken weren't raised ethically he's stop
>eating them. He keeps talking about the myth of the GFC, but it's not
>clear that if he moved somewhere where you couldn't get CFG he wouldn't
>switch to factory farmed meat.
>
>>
>>>How
>>>can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it?
>>
>> You don't care.
>
>How do you know I don't care?

You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your opposition to
humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
products.

>You presume too much. You must have a degree
>in psychology knowing that all the vegetarians out there don't care about
>animals. This is so preposterous.
>
> That's the point. So of course you surely
>> won't care enough to make any changes that promote life
>> and death for livestock, even if it would reduce the number
>> of overall deaths which you contribute to. Right? Right!!
>>
>>>You guys need to come up with a better argument.
>>
>> You don't care. You won't care. It's for people who might
>> care that the info is presented, and it's for people who might
>> care that you oppose the info. You don't care, and you don't
>> want anyone else to care.
>
>Maybe if you say it enough you'll believe it.

Maybe you could say or do something to change my mind,
but I doubt you ever will. I invite you to try.

>>>I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing
>>>some
>>>good and that bothers you.
>>
>> It's that you don't care, and can't be made to care, though
>> you dishonestly pretend that you do care. That has bothered
>> me for most of my life.
>
>I'll give you something else you can let bother you. That the majority of
>people don't care a bit about pain and suffering when they eat a meat.

I know that. But those people don't lie and pretend to care about
animals like you do. They admittedly don't care. You prove that you
don't care either, but dishonestly say you do. You are worse imo,
because of your incredible dishonesty.

>They could care less. Look at the audience at a bullfight. They're having
>a grand time. Why don't you worry about that?

Those people don't lie and pretend to care about animals like you do.
Your dishonesty is contemptible.

>You have missplaced worries.
>
>>>But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
>>>and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
>>>we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
>>>of animals is worthwhile?
>>
>> Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident that I'm much
>> more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you are. And
>> so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.
>
>How much do you expect this CFG thing to catch on with the public?

I have no expectations, but we can see that you do NOT want it to
happen. So we can very safely say that I would like to see it happen,
and you would like to prevent it.

>Is there
>a huge public outcry for GCF's. I don't know.
>
>>
>>>I don't really get that impression.
>>
>> That's because you can't care about the animals, so you can't
>> imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate livestock,
>> not provide decent lives for them, even in situations where doing
>> so would significantly reduce the number of animals deaths per
>> serving of food. You can't be made to care.
>
>Have a little faith in me, Mr. Optimistic ;-)

How could I? I would like to see food animals deliberately
provided with decent lives. You would like to see food animals
prevented from existing. How could I possibly have faith that
you want something good for the animals we raise to eat, when
we both know very well that you don't want them to exist at all?

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:00:20 GMT, "rick" > wrote:

>No one says vegetarianism doesn't "DO"
>anything.

A good way to think about it is that if vegans could do what
they try to do, they would be "doing" for animals what dead
people do. Nothing.

>The point is that it is not the magic, automatic
>paridise for animals that you like to delude yourself about.

Which animals could vegetarians think they're providing
anything for?

>>How do you know I don't care?
>
> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
> opposition to
> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
> products.

I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find the
act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be repugnant.

"larrylook" > wrote in message
...
>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>
>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is
>> your opposition to
>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN
>> FED--animal
>> products.
>
> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my
> grandmother when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I
> loved her and would find the act repulsive. Just like eating a
> chimp, dog or dolphin would be repugnant.
> ===============================
You really love your ignorant strawmen, don't you killer? Who
here eats chimp, dog, or dolphin?
On the other hand, you do kill far more mammals, birds, reptiles,
fish and amphibians than necessary, hypocrite

But then, you have continued to prove that you must love all that
blood dripping on your hands...



>

"larrylook" > wrote
>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>
>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>> opposition to
>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>> products.
>
> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
> repugnant.

So saving animal lives is not your main priority, it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0400, "larrylook" > wrote:

>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>
>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>> opposition to
>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>> products.
>
>I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>when she died.

You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
which is something you would hate to do.

>But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find the
>act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be repugnant.

I sure do pitty your kids...and probably so do their friends. You
would have to work really hard to get a grip on reality, and this little
exercise in the truth about human influence on animals *could* be
a great help to you. But you can't get yourself to care, and of
course no one else can make you. So you remain in the twisted
grotesque world of your own creation, no doubt at the expense of
others who must put up with you. You probably won't admit it, but
I'll bet other people tell you that.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"larrylook" > wrote
>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>
>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>> opposition to
>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>> products.
>>
>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>> repugnant.
>
>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,

You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you think
it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.

>it's aesthetics, so what
>else is new?

It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
animals by being vegan or by eating meat. All they can do is contribute
to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it deliberately.

People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock. People
can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the same
time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of vegetable
products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.

Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:

Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food to
raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
Message-ID: >

Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.

"This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and
what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher? Revered moralist, he
might plead, fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and tomorrow
but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my porcine
intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me,
thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I pray
thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If,
then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."

Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.

Spare all of us, ****wit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
At one time he pretended to understand that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
obviously did.

<dh@.> wrote
> The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
> which is something you would hate to do.

"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until* you
agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
issue. Vegans' stance that they should never be born is NOT a source of
criticism of veganism any more than it would be a source of moral criticism
of a farmer who decides for economic reasons to have a smaller herd of
cattle. It's high time you get off that kick David, it's an absurd argument.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"larrylook" > wrote
>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>>
>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>>> opposition to
>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>>> products.
>>>
>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>>> repugnant.
>>
>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
>
> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
> think
> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.

Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through that
process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim to,
neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.

>>it's aesthetics, so what
>>else is new?
>
> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.

Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
prevent future animals from being born, or as they see it, they *save* the
animals from being born into an abbreviated life marked by suffering,
deprivation and exploitation.

> All they can do is contribute
> to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
> deliberately.

They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is nothing
worthy of criticism.

> People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.

Only by consuming selectively, simply consuming does not do that. You are
pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't you
stop lying ****wit?

> People
> can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
> same
> time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
> vegetable
> products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.

I have no reason to be opposed to it ****wit. I am opposed to one thing in
this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of the
Larder, and I will continue to oppose it.

> Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:
>
> Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
> to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
> to
> raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
> a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
> fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.

How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?

__________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
> Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
> Message-ID: >
>
> Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
> for the pig here, you ought to listen.
>
> "This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
> and
> what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher? Revered moralist, he
> might plead, fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day a pig, and tomorrow
> but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of ethics, yet to my
> porcine
> intellect it appeareth that having first determined to kill and devour me,
> thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason. For mark, I
> pray
> thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
> considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If,
> then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
> hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
> his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
> fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."
>
> Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my
> flesh,
> then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.
>
> Spare all of us, ****wit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> At one time he pretended to understand that:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
>
> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
> or negative value to the animal.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
> about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
> anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
> and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
> obviously did.

You are one confused, ****ed-up redneck ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0400, "larrylook" > wrote:
>
>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>
>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>> opposition to
>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>> products.
>>
>>I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>>when she died.
>
> You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
> they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
> don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
> lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
> which is something you would hate to do.

So the farmer who acts to create more future animals is morally better than
the one who doesn't? The person who has 4 kids is better than the person
who has 2 who is better than the person who has 0. This seems absurd to me.
If someone sterilizes his dog he is less moral because he prevents future
lives. I don't think you can put future lives into the equation like this.
It makes no sense to me. I beef farmer is not doing something noble or
commendable simply because he takes steps to create further cow lives. If I
don't want more rabbits around my garden and I feed the rabbits a food that
makes them unable to breed, I don't think I've done something unethical. I
haven't killed these future lives and I'm not morally resposible for them.
You need to think this over a bit.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"larrylook" > wrote
>>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>>>> opposition to
>>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>>>> products.
>>>>
>>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
>>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>>>> repugnant.
>>>
>>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
>>
>> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
>> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
>> think
>> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.
>
>Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
>are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through that
>process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim to,
>neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.
>
>>>it's aesthetics, so what
>>>else is new?
>>
>> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
>> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.
>
>Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
>prevent future animals from being born,

Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing something
to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.

>or as they see it, they *save* the
>animals from being born into an abbreviated life

· Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
didn't raise them, 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
and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
they get as a result of it. ·

>marked by suffering,
>deprivation

Some have horrible lives. Some have decent lives. Some have
good lives. To you it makes no difference what the quality of
their lives are...it is all exploitation to you.

>and exploitation.

To me that is an ignorant, shallow way to think.

>> All they can do is contribute
>> to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
>> deliberately.
>
>They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is nothing
>worthy of criticism.
>
>> People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.
>
>Only by consuming selectively,

Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can deliberately
contribute to decent lives for farm animals.

>simply consuming does not do that.

I never said it does.

>You are
>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't you
>stop lying ****wit?

I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point out.
For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:

1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
contribute to their elimination.
5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
some vegetable products.
6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.
7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.

>> People
>> can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
>> same
>> time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
>> vegetable
>> products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.
>
>I have no reason to be opposed to it ****wit. I am opposed to one thing in
>this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of the
>Larder,

And of course I'm opposed to the Logic of the Fantastic Singing Pig.

>and I will continue to oppose it.
>
>> Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:
>>
>> Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
>> to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
>> to
>> raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy about
>> a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
>> fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
>
>How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
>ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?

1. Your insistence that we can't take the lives of animals into consideration
when we contemplate human influence on animals.
2. Your insistence that raising animals for food is like raising children for
sex slaves.
3. Your insistence that a speech by an imaginary talking pig written by a
founder of "AR", somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals
benefit from farming.
4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
for "AR" organizations.
5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than deliberately
contribute to decent lives for food animals.
6. Things like this:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:17:31 -0800

it *is* pure exploitation. The fact that animals are alive (ie. "get to experience
life" as you put it) does not offset that fact, in fact it arguably adds to it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700

Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800

My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800

I am an animal rights believer.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[...]
>> At one time he pretended to understand that:
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: "Dutch" >
>> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
>>
>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
>> or negative value to the animal.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
>> about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
>> anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
>> and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
>> obviously did.
>
>You are one confused, ****ed-up redneck ****wit.

Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy to
understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:52:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
>> which is something you would hate to do.
>
>"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until* you
>agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
>issue.

It's not like that for everyone. You "ARAs" decide in advance that
you believe the animals morally should not be born regardless of the
quality that their lives would have. I believe the quality of their lives
should be taken into consideration.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:38:43 -0400, "larrylook" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:53:58 -0400, "larrylook" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>>
>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>>> opposition to
>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>>> products.
>>>
>>>I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>>>when she died.
>>
>> You can't save animals in any way unless you go directly to where
>> they are in danger and remove them or the danger. What you buy or
>> don't buy in a store can't do anything to help animals who have already
>> lived and died. The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
>> which is something you would hate to do.
>
>So the farmer who acts to create more future animals is morally better than
>the one who doesn't?

He certainly provides life for more animals, whether it's "morally better"
or not. Of course a person like yourself who hates the animals could never
feel it's morally better, regardless of the quality of life.

>The person who has 4 kids is better than the person
>who has 2 who is better than the person who has 0. This seems absurd to me.
>If someone sterilizes his dog he is less moral because he prevents future
>lives. I don't think you can put future lives into the equation like this.

I can because I can also consider quality of life, and that a decent life
is a positive thing. I can believe that sometimes it's good to encourage life
and sometimes it's not. You can't do either.

>It makes no sense to me.

I believe you.

>I beef farmer is not doing something noble or
>commendable simply because he takes steps to create further cow lives. If I
>don't want more rabbits around my garden and I feed the rabbits a food that
>makes them unable to breed, I don't think I've done something unethical.

Neither do I.

>I haven't killed these future lives and I'm not morally resposible for them.
>You need to think this over a bit.

It's quite obvious that I've thought it over a lot, and consider more aspects
of the situation than you do, and probably more than you'll ever be able to.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"larrylook" > wrote
>>>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>>>>>> opposition to
>>>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>>>>>> products.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my
>>>>> grandmother
>>>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would
>>>>> find
>>>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>>>>> repugnant.
>>>>
>>>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
>>>
>>> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
>>> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
>>> think
>>> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something
>>> up.
>>
>>Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
>>are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through
>>that
>>process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim
>>to,
>>neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.
>>
>>>>it's aesthetics, so what
>>>>else is new?
>>>
>>> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
>>> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.
>>
>>Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
>>prevent future animals from being born,
>
> Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing something
> to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.

I'm not saying that there's no doubletalk in veganism, but you don't fight a
dishonest movement by trying to outdo their level of duplicity. When vegans
claim to be helping animals, it makes no sense to take that to mean some
specific animals in barns somewhere. It means livestock animals *in
general*, it means that veganism means fewer livestock and that is a more
moral state of affairs.

>>or as they see it, they *save* the
>>animals from being born into an abbreviated life
>
> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
> didn't raise them, 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
> and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
> they get as a result of it. ·

That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep them
in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.

>>marked by suffering,
>>deprivation
>
> Some have horrible lives. Some have decent lives. Some have
> good lives. To you it makes no difference what the quality of
> their lives are...it is all exploitation to you.

For it to be exploitation it does not depend on whether or not the animals
suffer, it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.

>>and exploitation.
>
> To me that is an ignorant, shallow way to think.

Exploitation is exploitation, if you treat a slave well, you're still
exploiting him.

>>> All they can do is contribute
>>> to the lives and deaths of future such animals, and they can do it
>>> deliberately.
>>
>>They don't want to do that, and in that, in and of itself, there is
>>nothing
>>worthy of criticism.
>>
>>> People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.
>>
>>Only by consuming selectively,
>
> Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can
> deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for farm animals.

That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.

>>simply consuming does not do that.
>
> I never said it does.

It's implied in your position.

>>You are
>>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
>>you
>>stop lying ****wit?
>
> I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point
> out.

You don't "point out truth" ****wit, you spin a shabby sophistry.

> For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
>
> 1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.

Being born is not a benefit.

> 2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.

Only if the animals are born.

> 3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.

No, it would make it irrelevant.

> 4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
> contribute to their elimination.

Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.

> 5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
> livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
> some vegetable products.

There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted with your
spinny rhetoric.

> 6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
> than their deaths.

"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.

> 7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.

Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets. We
raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.


>>> People
>>> can deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock while at the
>>> same
>>> time contributing to fewer deaths than by consuming some types of
>>> vegetable
>>> products, and THAT is what you are most opposed to.
>>
>>I have no reason to be opposed to it ****wit. I am opposed to one thing in
>>this discussion, and that is your constant introduction of the Logic of
>>the
>>Larder,
>
> And of course I'm opposed to the Logic of the Fantastic Singing Pig.

We were opposing LoL years before Salt's essay came along.

>>and I will continue to oppose it.
>>
>>> Note to "larrylook" about Dutch:
>>>
>>> Dutch would rather people become vegan, than deliberately contribute
>>> to decent lives for food animals. Dutch equates raising animals for food
>>> to
>>> raising human children as sex slaves. Dutch believes that a fantasy
>>> about
>>> a talking pig, written by one of your fellow "ARAs", somehow refutes the
>>> fact that some farm animals benefit from farming. Dutch agrees with you.
>>
>>How about it Larry? Is he correct in concluding that I believe everyone
>>ought to become vegans? What makes him think this?
>
> 1. Your insistence that we can't take the lives of animals into
> consideration
> when we contemplate human influence on animals.

You can't take a moral credit because they are living creatures.

> 2. Your insistence that raising animals for food is like raising children
> for
> sex slaves.

No, your sophism MAKES it like taking credit for raising children for the
sex trade.

> 3. Your insistence that a speech by an imaginary talking pig written by a
> founder of "AR", somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals
> benefit from farming.

It completely refutes your position.

> 4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
> difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
> for "AR" organizations.

I don't even understand that one.

> 5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
> deliberately
> contribute to decent lives for food animals.

Those are not the only two options, it's a fase choice fallacy.

> 6. Things like this:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:17:31 -0800
>
> it *is* pure exploitation. The fact that animals are alive (ie. "get to
> experience
> life" as you put it) does not offset that fact, in fact it arguably adds
> to it.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:39:29 -0700
>
> Rights for animals exist because human rights
> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
> animals would not exist."
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:35:23 -0800
>
> My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
> the animal or species.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:23:06 -0800
>
> I am an animal rights believer.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> [...]
>>> At one time he pretended to understand that:
>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:27:48 -0700
>>>
>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive
>>> or negative value to the animal.
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>> but he has since un-learned that somehow. I really have to wonder
>>> about someone who is capable of un-learning. I don't know of
>>> anyone else who has managed to un-learn something as significant
>>> and also easy to understand as the fact he mentioned, but Dutch
>>> obviously did.
>>
>>You are one confused, ****ed-up redneck ****wit.
>
> Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
> significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy
> to
> understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!

I didn't unlearn anything ****wit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:52:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> The best you could do is contribute to future animals,
>>> which is something you would hate to do.
>>
>>"Future animals" do NOT pose any kind of moral issue *unless and until*
>>you
>>agree that they will be bred into existence, then their welfare is a moral
>>issue.
>
> It's not like that for everyone.

That is how it is.

> You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA, stop embarrassing yourself.

in advance that
> you believe the animals morally should not be born regardless of the
> quality that their lives would have.

So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.

> I believe the quality of their lives
> should be taken into consideration.

So do I, *if* they are going to be raised. This idea of yours that they
ought to be born so that we can apply AW principles to them is at the core
of your position and it is moronic.

> So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
>

you mean animals that are not conceived? what if they're aborted? there's
a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)

"Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills" > wrote in
message ...
>
>> So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
>>
>
> you mean animals that are not conceived? what if they're aborted?
> there's a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)

Yes, that's more precise, thank you.

dh@. wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"larrylook" > wrote
> >>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
> >>>>> opposition to
> >>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
> >>>>> products.
> >>>>
> >>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmo=
ther
> >>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would =
find
> >>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
> >>>> repugnant.
> >>>
> >>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
> >>
> >> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
> >> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
> >> think
> >> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something=
up.
> >
> >Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
> >are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through t=
hat
> >process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim=
to,
> >neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.
> >
> >>>it's aesthetics, so what
> >>>else is new?
> >>
> >> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
> >> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.
> >
> >Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
> >prevent future animals from being born,
>
> Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing somethi=
ng
> to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.
>
> >or as they see it, they *save* the
> >animals from being born into an abbreviated life
>
> =B7 Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
> didn't raise them, 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.

None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).
Your failure to take these facts into consideration
is the real distortion of reality.=20

[snip]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote

>> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
>> didn't raise them, 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
>> and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
>> they get as a result of it. ·
>
>That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep them
>in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.

They gain life from it. Remember? Or did you unlearn that too?
They gain life from it, and you want very badly to PREVENT people
from considering that aspect. Remember? That's the main reason
for the hundreds or thousands of posts you've made to me, in your
attempts to make the lives of billions of animals appear to be
insignificant to me. Remember?
[···]
>>>marked by suffering,
>>>deprivation
[···]
> it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.
[···]
>>>and exploitation.
[···]
>Exploitation is exploitation,
[···]
>>>Only by consuming selectively,
>>
>> Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can deliberately
>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>
>That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.

I was hoping you might somehow understand the second time. Let's
try it this way: How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute
to decent lives for farm animals, without consuming selectively?

>>>simply consuming does not do that.
>>
>> I never said it does.
>
>It's implied in your position.

I am very curious to see how.

>>>You are
>>>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>>>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
>>>you
>>>stop lying ****wit?
>>
>> I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point
>> out.
>
>You don't "point out truth"

If I were going to lie, I wouldn't say the things I do you stupid
moron. I'd say things that I thought would make people like me
better. You dumbass.

>****wit, you spin a shabby sophistry.
>
>> For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
>>
>> 1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>
>Being born is not a benefit.

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has
positive or negative value to the animal. How did you unlearn that?

>> 2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>
>Only if the animals are born.

How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

>> 3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
>
>No

Liar.

>it would make it irrelevant.
>
>> 4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
>> contribute to their elimination.
>
>Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.

How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
AW for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

>> 5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
>> livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
>> some vegetable products.
>
>There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted

How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute fewer wildlife
deaths and to decent lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

>with your
>spinny rhetoric.
>
>> 6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
>> than their deaths.
>
>"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.

How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

>> 7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.
>
>Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
>taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets.

Explain how a farmer taking credit for the life of his favorite cow, is
analagous to him whoring out his daughter.

>We
>raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
>but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
>"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.

When considering whether or not it's cruel to the animals to do so,
I will not attempt to avoid considering their life.

[...]
>> 4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
>> difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
>> for "AR" organizations.
>
>I don't even understand that one.

You want me to kill myself because I point out the difference between
AW and "AR". The reason you want me to kill myself is because you
believe, as I do, that the vast majority of the financial support for "AR"As
comes from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of
animal use. We agree about that. The difference is that I want people
to understand the difference, so they will stop contributing to your elimination
objective. Of course, you do NOT want them to stop. You understood better
than I did before I explained it, and we both damn well know it. I understand
that is the way it is, but don't understand why. You do understand why, and
also why you created the situation.

>> 5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
>> deliberately
>> contribute to decent lives for food animals.
>
>Those are not the only two options,

What's the other one?

>it's a fase choice fallacy.

[...]
>> Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
>> significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy
>> to
>> understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!
>
>I didn't unlearn anything ****wit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
>point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.

Well, I don't really give a **** whether you consider it a moral brownie
point or any other imaginary damn stupid thing. No brownie points. No
gold stars. No lollipops or any other stupid ass thing. How's that?

Here is where you can't go, but I won't forget about it. The method of
husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative
value to the animal. That means TO THE ANIMAL you selfish *******.
Not to you. You are too selfish to understand the truth of your own
words, and Salt's imaginary singing pig was correct when it said in its
final moments:

It is not for their sake but for thine, that you would
rather prevent their lives than see them deliberately
provided with decent lives and humane deaths.

On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><dh@.> wrote
>> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"larrylook" > wrote
>> >>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>> >>>>> opposition to
>> >>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>> >>>>> products.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>> >>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
>> >>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>> >>>> repugnant.
>> >>>
>> >>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
>> >>
>> >> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
>> >> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
>> >> think
>> >> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.
>> >
>> >Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
>> >are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through that
>> >process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim to,
>> >neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.
>> >
>> >>>it's aesthetics, so what
>> >>>else is new?
>> >>
>> >> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
>> >> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.
>> >
>> >Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
>> >prevent future animals from being born,
>>
>> Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing something
>> to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.
>>
>> >or as they see it, they *save* the
>> >animals from being born into an abbreviated life
>>
>> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
>> didn't raise them, 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.
>
>None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
>created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
>have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
>life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).

I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.

>Your failure to take these facts into consideration
>is the real distortion of reality.

I most certainly take them into consideration. I've pointed out
more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
crop filds. I have also more than once asked: why should we only
contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote

>> You "ARAs" decide
>
>You know I'm not an ARA

How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:34:19 GMT, "Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills" >
wrote:

>
>> So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
>>
>
>you mean animals that are not conceived?

They are too stupid to take that into consideration to any extent.
I call their fantasy idea ines (imaginary nonexistent "entities") for
convenience. The heart of their argument is totally dependant on
assigning some significance to ines. Dutch's hero, Goo, who
began this campaign to prevent consideration of the lives of
billions of animals, says that animals can't benefit because ines
don't, which seems absurd to me:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:18:19 GMT

"Life" cannot be a benefit, or something "better" than
what was in place before, TO a being that doesn't
exist. But before they are conceived and then born,
animals don't exist. Thus, "life" CANNOT be a
"benefit" to animals, as stupid illogical ****wit would
have it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Message-ID: .com>

NO animal "benefits" from coming into existence
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Date: 8 Mar 2005 10:32:48 -0800

An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to that entity.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jay Santos >
Message-ID: t>

Life itself is not a benefit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: >

Animals "getting to experience life", per se, is not worthy of
moral consideration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Message-ID: .com>

No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Wilson Woods >
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 16:26:04 GMT

Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit" to them
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Message-ID: .com>

Initial existence
CANNOT be a benefit to the entity that comes into existence
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Message-ID: .com>

No animal "benefits" from coming into existence.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From:
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:40:51 GMT

Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Dieter >
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:15:23 GMT

Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living
thing, for very well documented and tightly logical
reasons that have been explained THOUSANDS of times
here, and that you, of course, cannot refute.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

>what if they're aborted?

What if? The Goos believe that their lives are not a benefit anyway,
so what do they lose whenever they are killed? By the Goobal argument
nothing, regardless of quality of life or anything else.

>there's
>a moral issue there. (embryonic stem cells?)

Here's an interesting idiocy: I pointed out a number of times that
if unborn animals are not born it would kill the unborn and the mother,
but still Goo continued to insist that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:59 GMT

NO animals "benefit" from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:49 GMT

No animal benefits from being born. Period.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:12:48 GMT

NO animals benefit from being born, ****wit. None.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:16:38 GMT

NO animals benefit from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:33:07 GMT

NO animal benefits from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:53:46 GMT

Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:20:32 GMT

NO animals 'benefit' from being born, ****wit. Not a
single one.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:53:53 GMT

Being born is not a benefit, ****WIT; it cannot be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>
>>> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
>>> didn't raise them, 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
>>> and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
>>> they get as a result of it. ·
>>
>>That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep
>>them
>>in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.
>
> They gain life from it. Remember? Or did you unlearn that too?

We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them to
use as food.

> They gain life from it, and you want very badly to PREVENT people
> from considering that aspect. Remember? That's the main reason
> for the hundreds or thousands of posts you've made to me, in your
> attempts to make the lives of billions of animals appear to be
> insignificant to me. Remember?

No, I am not concerned with preventing anyone except you from using The
Logic of the Larder, since in case you hadn't noticed virtually nobody but
you is using the argument, nor will they ever. It's stupid, circular
sophistry that I am quite sure most 10-year-olds could see through.

> [···]
>>>>marked by suffering,
>>>>deprivation
> [···]
>> it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.
> [···]
>>>>and exploitation.
> [···]
>>Exploitation is exploitation,
> [···]
>>>>Only by consuming selectively,
>>>
>>> Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can
>>> deliberately
>>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can
>>>deliberately
>>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>>
>>That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.
>
> I was hoping you might somehow understand the second time. Let's
> try it this way: How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute
> to decent lives for farm animals, without consuming selectively?

That's what I said, idiot. Simply consuming does NOT "contribute to decent
lives for farm animals". Your false choice is presented as a/b, we can a)
"contribute to decent lives for farm animals" OR b) we can be vegans. In
order for that dichotomy to be logical a) must refer to simply consuming
animal products, not consuming selectively, because that *is* the opposite
of veganism. I fear however that you use this sophistry unconsciously and
don't even know what I'm saying. See again below..

>>>>simply consuming does not do that.
>>>
>>> I never said it does.
>>
>>It's implied in your position.
>
> I am very curious to see how.

The paragraph right above explained it.

>>>>You are
>>>>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>>>>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
>>>>you
>>>>stop lying ****wit?
>>>
>>> I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I
>>> point
>>> out.
>>
>>You don't "point out truth"
>
> If I were going to lie, I wouldn't say the things I do you stupid
> moron. I'd say things that I thought would make people like me
> better. You dumbass.

Would you? I think you have so much of your pride invested in the LoL now
that you can't let it go.

>>****wit, you spin a shabby sophistry.
>>
>>> For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
>>>
>>> 1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.
>>
>>Being born is not a benefit.
>
> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has
> positive or negative value to the animal. How did you unlearn that?

I didn't. AW only applies *after* the fact.

>>> 2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.
>>
>>Only if the animals are born.
>
> How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
> lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

They wouldn't need to, no issue.

>>> 3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.
>>
>>No
>
> Liar.
>
>>it would make it irrelevant.

Correct.

>>> 4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
>>> contribute to their elimination.
>>
>>Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.
>
> How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
> AW for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

They contribute to AW for the only ones that matter, the ones who *are*
born.

>>> 5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
>>> livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
>>> some vegetable products.
>>
>>There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted
>
> How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute fewer wildlife
> deaths and to decent lives for farm animals, if the animals are never
> born?

See above.

>>with your
>>spinny rhetoric.
>>
>>> 6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more
>>> consideration
>>> than their deaths.
>>
>>"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.
>
> How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
> lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

See above.

>>> 7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.
>>
>>Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous
>>to
>>taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets.
>
> Explain how a farmer taking credit for the life of his favorite cow, is
> analagous to him whoring out his daughter.

Farmer ****wit: "I gave my cow Betsy the life she now enjoys, that should
count for something against the fact I am going to kill her and eat her."

Father ****wit: "I gave my daughter Betsy the life she now enjoys, that
should count for something against the fact I am going to sell her to
pimps."

In both those cases the exploiter attempts to use the fact of *life* to
mount a justification for his actions. This attempt at self-justification is
not "consideration" for the animal/person, it's taking the exploitation to
another level, in effect adding insult to injury. This is not ethical
thinking.

Killing an animal for food is judged on it's own merits regardless if the
animal "lived". I judge it to be moral.

Pimping out your children is judged on it's own merits, regardless if the
child "lived", and I judge *that* to be immoral.

The fact the animal or the child "experienced life" because of some prior
action by you has no effect on those moral determinations.

>>We
>>raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
>>but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
>>"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.
>
> When considering whether or not it's cruel to the animals to do so,
> I will not attempt to avoid considering their life.

In doing so you are doing what the people in the examples above are doing.

> [...]
>>> 4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
>>> difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less
>>> support
>>> for "AR" organizations.
>>
>>I don't even understand that one.
>
> You want me to kill myself because I point out the difference between
> AW and "AR".

You don't point out anything useful, you spin self-serving sophistry.

>The reason you want me to kill myself is because you
> believe, as I do, that the vast majority of the financial support for
> "AR"As
> comes from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of
> animal use. We agree about that.

That's right.

> The difference is that I want people
> to understand the difference, so they will stop contributing to your
> elimination
> objective. Of course, you do NOT want them to stop. You understood better
> than I did before I explained it, and we both damn well know it. I
> understand
> that is the way it is, but don't understand why. You do understand why,
> and
> also why you created the situation.

I don't want people to stop contributing to PeTA because right now there are
not very many groups out there supporting the cause of animals. I am not
worried about the "elimination agenda" because it's a pipe dream. Martha
Stewart just signed on as a supporter of PeTA, that's a "good thing", she
doesn't support elimination, she cooks veal cutlets. The PeTA elimination
agenda is almost as out to lunch as your taking credit for their lives
agenda.

>>> 5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
>>> deliberately
>>> contribute to decent lives for food animals.
>>
>>Those are not the only two options,
>
> What's the other one?

Deliberately contributing to the lives of livestock by consuming animal
products, period, with no regard for their welfare, and/or including
consuming *with* regard for welfare. From a strict semantic point of view
*that* is the logical opposite to veganism. "Decent lives" introduces an
extraneous element which unbalances the comparison, and therefore it is
sophistry. You do it all the time, and god help you, I don't think you even
know you're doing it.

>>it's a fase choice fallacy.
>
> [...]
>>> Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
>>> significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very
>>> easy
>>> to
>>> understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!
>>
>>I didn't unlearn anything ****wit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
>>point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.
>
> Well, I don't really give a **** whether you consider it a moral
> brownie
> point or any other imaginary damn stupid thing. No brownie points. No
> gold stars. No lollipops or any other stupid ass thing. How's that?

Excellent, then your position is lost, we can't "consider that the animal
experienced life" when we evaluate the use of animals as products.

> Here is where you can't go, but I won't forget about it. The method of
> husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative
> value to the animal. That means TO THE ANIMAL you selfish *******.

I know, I said it.

> Not to you. You are too selfish to understand the truth of your own
> words, and Salt's imaginary singing pig was correct when it said in its
> final moments:
>
> It is not for their sake but for thine, that you would
> rather prevent their lives than see them deliberately
> provided with decent lives and humane deaths.

What's morally wrong with <gag> "preventing" livestock from existing? Every
farmer who adjusts his production to suit demand in a slow market does it.
Is he doing something immoral?

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>
>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>
>>You know I'm not an ARA
>
> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
> All evidence I've got is that you are.

You know I'm not an ARA ****wit, you know Jonathan Ball is not an ARA, you
know that our objections to your position have nothing to do with AR, admit
it and move on.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:34:19 GMT, "Jimi-Carlo Bukowski-Wills"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> So what? Animals that are never born do not present a moral issue.
>>>
>>
>>you mean animals that are not conceived?
>
> They are too stupid to take that into consideration

I acknowledged this clarification ****wit. When we talk about "being born",
we mean to come into existence, which more accurately refers to conception.
Jonathan has also agreed to this stipulation in the past, and you know it.
That doesn't change the fact that The Logic of the Larder is morally
reprehensible thinking, grow up and stop wasting everyone's time on it.

Dutch wrote:
> We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them to
> use as food.


Yeah and I would only eat vegetarian cows.


Michael Gordge

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them
>> to
>> use as food.
>
>
> Yeah and I would only eat vegetarian cows.

Agreed, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is not my idea of fun.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>
>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>
>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>
>You know I'm not an ARA

Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us, which means
Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
[A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;

"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>
>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>
>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>
>>You know I'm not an ARA
>
> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
> that animals do hold rights against us,

Yes, they do.

which means
> Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
> [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;

No, I'm not, not in the way he means it, i.e. I do NOT advocate the
elimination of animal farming.

You're deliberately obtuse Dreck, go away.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>
>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>
>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>
>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>
>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>
>Yes, they do.

Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
an ARA, liar Ditch.

>> which means
>> Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an
>> [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch;
>
>No, I'm not

Yes, you are, and snipping your quotes away
wont get you off the hook, either. Look at the
statement you wrote only a couple of days ago;

<restore>
"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.
<end restore>

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
matters worse for you, liar Ditch.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>
>>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>>
>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>
>>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>>
>>Yes, they do.
>
> Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
> that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
> an ARA, liar Ditch.

An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..

You can't have it both ways Derek, you claim I'm lying when I deny I'm an
ARA, and I'm lying when I say I recognize rights in animals. The more you
spin the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

How's Aristotle doing these days btw?

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:23:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>>>
>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>
>>>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>>>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>>>
>>>Yes, they do.
>>
>> Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
>> that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
>> an ARA, liar Ditch.
>
>An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..

Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
means you're lying again, Ditch.

>You can't have it both ways

That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.

<restore>
"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
matters worse for you, liar Ditch.
<end restore>

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:23:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>>>>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>>>>
>>>>Yes, they do.
>>>
>>> Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
>>> that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
>>> an ARA, liar Ditch.
>>
>>An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..
>
> Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
> can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
> means you're lying again, Ditch.

Many people who consume animal products hold the belief that animals have
rights. Martha Stewart just signed on as a spokesperson for PeTA, she cooks
veal cutlets.

>>You can't have it both ways
>
> That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
> you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.

I don't abuse any animals Derek.

> <restore>
> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault
> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
> conclude that they hold rights against humans who
> would abuse them."
> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp
>
> In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
> over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
> archives;
>
> "I am an animal rights believer."
> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>
> and
>
> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
> the animal or species."
> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>
> and
>
> "I recently signed a petition online supporting
> an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
> Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn
>
> and
>
> "Rights for animals exist because human rights
> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
> animals would not exist."
> Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz
>
> and
>
> "If they are inherent in humans then why are
> they not in some way inherent in all animals?
> I think rights are a human invention which we
> apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
> certain situations to other animals."
> ...
> "There is no coherent reason why humans ought
> to be prohibited from extending some form of
> rights towards animals in their care."
> ...
> "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
> we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
> versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
> within our sphere of influence."
> Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb
>
> When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
> you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
> the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
> you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
> the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
> liar, Ditch.
>
> Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
> matters worse for you, liar Ditch.

Those statements are all consistent with a belief that animals possess
rights, yet who is not an ARA.

I signed the South African petition for "sentience" also, twice.

The fact that I confuse and enrage you is very satisfying.

> <end restore>

Dutch wrote:
.... when I say I recognize rights in animals.

Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
weird.



Michael Gordge

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:43:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:23:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
>>>>>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
>>>>>> that animals do hold rights against us,
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, they do.
>>>>
>>>> Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
>>>> that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
>>>> an ARA, liar Ditch.
>>>
>>>An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..
>>
>> Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
>> can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
>> means you're lying again, Ditch.
>
>Many people who consume animal products hold the belief that animals have
>rights.

Then she's as misguided and as hypocritical as
you are, for no one can have rights-holders
farmed and slaughtered for their own gains
without deluding themselves. How very typical
of you to try justifying your own sad hypocrisy
by referring to another's.

>Martha Stewart just signed on as a spokesperson for PeTA, she cooks
>veal cutlets.

Ray Slater and Zakhar supported vivisection
and still tried to convince others that they
promoted animal rights, too, but they were
soon made to see the error of their ways
and left here in utter disgrace. Martha
Stewart is obviously of the same thin cloth if
what you claim about her has any truth to it.
She's a drooling wolf in sheep's clothing and
a hypocrite, just like you.

>>>You can't have it both ways
>>
>> That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
>> you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.
>
>I don't abuse any animals Derek.

You have them farmed and slaughtered for you,
and that is abuse. You know it, too, and Google
shows that you do;

"Because farm animals are sentient beings, and
forcing them through this mass production
assembly line "concentration camp" process is
cruel. We put innocent farm animals through
processes of suffering and early death that we
wouldn't subject the most heinous human
criminal to."
Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz

>> <restore>
>> "I measure my right to be free from physical assault
>> by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
>> who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
>> to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
>> conclude that they hold rights against humans who
>> would abuse them."
>> Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp
>>
>> In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
>> over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
>> archives;
>>
>> "I am an animal rights believer."
>> Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3
>>
>> and
>>
>> "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
>> like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
>> They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
>> own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
>> the animal or species."
>> Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh
>>
>> and
>>
>> "I recently signed a petition online supporting
>> an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
>> Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Rights for animals exist because human rights
>> exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
>> animals would not exist."
>> Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz
>>
>> and
>>
>> "If they are inherent in humans then why are
>> they not in some way inherent in all animals?
>> I think rights are a human invention which we
>> apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
>> certain situations to other animals."
>> ...
>> "There is no coherent reason why humans ought
>> to be prohibited from extending some form of
>> rights towards animals in their care."
>> ...
>> "I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
>> we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
>> versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
>> within our sphere of influence."
>> Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb
>>
>> When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
>> you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
>> the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
>> you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
>> the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
>> liar, Ditch.
>>
>> Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
>> matters worse for you, liar Ditch.
>
>Those statements are all consistent with a belief that animals possess
>rights

Then why have you made statements claiming the
belief and proponents of that belief are absurd
all these years, hypocrite? Below are just two
statements from you attacking the proposition
out of literally hundreds during the time you've
been trolling here;

"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

and

"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4

You either lying now or you were lying then,
but that's nothing new where you're concerned.

>, yet who is not an ARA.

An [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate is someone who
advocates rights for animals, and being that you've
been posting here on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
for over five years on a daily basis, feigning an
ignorance over the acronym to escape being seen
as a lying hypocrite is absurd.

>I signed the South African petition for "sentience" also, twice.
>
>The fact that I confuse and enrage you is very satisfying.

What makes you believe that you enrage me in any
way, and what does your obvious efforts to enrage
your opponents say about your general participation
as a meat-eater on vegetarian news groups, Ditch?

dh@. wrote:

> On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>"larrylook" > wrote
> >> >>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
> >> >>>>> opposition to
> >> >>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--an=
imal
> >> >>>>> products.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my gran=
dmother
> >> >>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and wou=
ld find
> >> >>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin woul=
d be
> >> >>>> repugnant.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
> >> >>
> >> >> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism =
does
> >> >> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If =
you
> >> >> think
> >> >> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make someth=
ing up.
> >> >
> >> >Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals=
who
> >> >are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go throug=
h that
> >> >process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't cl=
aim to,
> >> >neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.
> >> >
> >> >>>it's aesthetics, so what
> >> >>>else is new?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save f=
ood
> >> >> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.
> >> >
> >> >Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
> >> >prevent future animals from being born,
> >>
> >> Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing some=
thing
> >> to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.
> >>
> >> >or as they see it, they *save* the
> >> >animals from being born into an abbreviated life
> >>
> >> =B7 Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
> >> didn't raise them, 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.
> >
> >None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
> >created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
> >have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
> >life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).
>
> I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.

The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support
cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to
support other forms of life. If you wish to take moral credit
for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral
debit for these lives that are prevented from existing.

BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount
of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come
back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze
there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist!

> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration
> >is the real distortion of reality.
>
> I most certainly take them into consideration.

So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence
of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without
human help?

> I've pointed out
> more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
> have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
> crop filds.

That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are
considering the wrong eqaution. If some of the land used to graze
cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in
crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably
result in more wildlife in total. YMMD.

> I have also more than once asked: why should we only
> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
> life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?

I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any
ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your
premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a
loan to its farmer.

Dutch wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>"Derek" > wrote
> >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>><dh@.> wrote
> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> You "ARAs" decide
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You know I'm not an ARA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How could I even suspect that you might not be?
> >>>>> All evidence I've got is that you are.
> >>>>
> >>>>You know I'm not an ARA
> >>>
> >>> Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
> >>> that animals do hold rights against us,
> >>
> >>Yes, they do.
> >
> > Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
> > that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
> > an ARA, liar Ditch.
>
> An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..
>
> You can't have it both ways Derek, you claim I'm lying when I deny I'm an
> ARA, and I'm lying when I say I recognize rights in animals. The more you
> spin the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.
>
> How's Aristotle doing these days btw?

I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
provided didn't he?

> Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes matters worse for you, liar Ditch.

And what a rational counter-argument you have, Liar Divvy-Derek.

On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:
>
>I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
>us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
>meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
>provided didn't he?

If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
terms accurately and clearly. If you still have a problem
understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?

On 23 Sep 2005 07:08:32 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote:

>> Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes matters worse for you, liar Ditch.
>
>And what a rational counter-argument you have, Liar Divvy-Derek.

It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the
issue, not a counter-argument, stupid.