On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:06:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:28:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> asked again:
>>
>>>> Where did you copy the idea that life can have a positive value for
>>>> animals from?
>>>
>>>What makes you think I copied it from anywhere?
>>
>> Because you don't understand the concept
>
>I understand it perfectly.

You do NOT understand the concept.

>It means that if we treat animals under our care
>with respect, cause them minimal suffering, then raising them and killing
>them for food can be viewed as perfectly moral and ethical.

LOL. The pureness of your selfishness prevents you from even being
able to consider how life has positive or negative value to the animal.
All you are ever able to consider are your own imaginary moral browny
points, not animals.

Where did you copy the idea that life can have a positive value for
animals from?

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:58:58 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>The pureness of your selfishness prevents you from even being
>able to consider how life has positive or negative value to the animal.
>All you are ever able to consider are your own imaginary moral browny
>points, not animals.
>
> Where did you copy the idea that life can have a positive value for
>animals from?

I did a Google search for the exact quote trying to find where you
copied it from, but all it came up with was me quoting you, and asking
you where you copied it, etc.

Where did you copy the idea from Dutch? Where, you sorry ass?

You get no credit for any of it when you eat a chicken leg.

http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm

"Bob Yates" > wrote
> http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm

Oh no! Who will raise the livestock so they can experience life?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:49:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Bob Yates" > wrote
>> http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm
>
>Oh no! Who will raise the livestock so they can experience life?

LOL. When the subject is about livestock you compare it to
humans, and now when the subject is about humans:

"Q: What is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization.
It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet
Earth. We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social,
Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes
humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human
extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters."

you bring up livestock. You come up "ARA" every damn time
you make a post.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:49:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob Yates" > wrote
>>> http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm
>>
>>Oh no! Who will raise the livestock so they can experience life?
>
> LOL. When the subject is about livestock you compare it to
> humans, and now when the subject is about humans:
> you bring up livestock. You come up "ARA" every damn time
> you make a post.

You're the one who claims it's morally relevant that livestock get to
experience life. If humans go extinct then so will livestock.

You should be objecting to VHEMT on that basis.

dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:49:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Yates" > wrote
> >> http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm
> >
> >Oh no! Who will raise the livestock so they can experience life?
>
> LOL. When the subject is about livestock you compare it to
> humans, and now when the subject is about humans:
>
> "Q: What is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?
>
> VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization.
> It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet
> Earth. We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social,
> Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes
> humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human
> extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters."
>
> you bring up livestock. You come up "ARA"

No, he doesn't.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:44:03 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:49:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Yates" > wrote
>>>> http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm
>>>
>>>Oh no! Who will raise the livestock so they can experience life?
>>
>> LOL. When the subject is about livestock you compare it to
>> humans, and now when the subject is about humans:
>> you bring up livestock. You come up "ARA" every damn time
>> you make a post.
>
>You're the one who claims it's morally relevant that livestock get to
>experience life.

Relevant when they do, not when "they" don't.

>If humans go extinct then so will livestock.

Agreed.

>You should be objecting to VHEMT on that basis.

Should we think of those things differently? My overall thinking
is that humans should have more control over the animals who
live and die, and the quality of their lives. "ARAs" say humans
should have less, though they happily contribute to the deaths
of wildlife through their use of roads and buildings, paper and wood
products, products which are mined, their own diets etc, the same
as everyone else does. So far they have yet to provide good reason
to eliminate livestock *instead of* providing them with decent lives,
even though that is the option they wish to impose.

dh@. lied:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:44:03 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> liedin message ...
> >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:49:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Bob Yates" > wrote
> >>>> http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm
> >>>
> >>>Oh no! Who will raise the livestock so they can experience life?
> >>
> >> LOL. When the subject is about livestock you compare it to
> >> humans, and now when the subject is about humans:
> >> you bring up livestock. You come up "ARA" every damn time
> >> you make a post.
> >
> >You're the one who claims it's morally relevant that livestock get to
> >experience life.
>
> Relevant when they do, not when "they" don't.
>
> >If humans go extinct then so will livestock.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >You should be objecting to VHEMT on that basis.
>
> Should we think of those things differently? My overall thinking
> is that humans should have more control over the animals who
> live and die, and the quality of their lives. "ARAs" say humans
> should have less,

FALSE. "aras" believe humans should exercise COMPLETE control over
livestock, but they want the control to be exercised in one way only:
to stop breeding them.

> So far they have yet to provide good reason
> to eliminate livestock *instead of* providing them with decent lives

False choice, as always.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:44:03 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 04:49:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bob Yates" > wrote
>>>>> http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm
>>>>
>>>>Oh no! Who will raise the livestock so they can experience life?
>>>
>>> LOL. When the subject is about livestock you compare it to
>>> humans, and now when the subject is about humans:
>>> you bring up livestock. You come up "ARA" every damn time
>>> you make a post.
>>
>>You're the one who claims it's morally relevant that livestock get to
>>experience life.
>
> Relevant when they do, not when "they" don't.

That's a lie, you have made it abundantly clear that you believe it is an
inherent failing of veganism that their diets do not "encourage lives for
animals", referring to unborn livestock.

>>If humans go extinct then so will livestock.
>
> Agreed.

Yet the extinction of mankind is a moral issue to most people, while there
is no moral importance at all to the extinction of livestock species.

>>You should be objecting to VHEMT on that basis.
>
> Should we think of those things differently?

Yes.

> My overall thinking
> is that humans should have more control over the animals who
> live and die, and the quality of their lives. "ARAs" say humans
> should have less, though they happily contribute to the deaths
> of wildlife through their use of roads and buildings, paper and wood
> products, products which are mined, their own diets etc, the same
> as everyone else does.

There's a difference between contributing to collateral animal deaths and
having "control" over animals. Please do not confuse the two issues.

> So far they have yet to provide good reason
> to eliminate livestock *instead of* providing them with decent lives,
> even though that is the option they wish to impose.

The reason is their belief that raising animals in captivity in order to use
them for products is wrongful exploitation. Neither you nor I agree with
that reasoning, but your argument that they are "denying animals a chance to
experience life" or other similiar ideas, is pure unadulterated hogwash that
you should discard as quickly as possible.