On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. skrev:

>> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
>> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain clueless.
>> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
>
>Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as food.

Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
raise for food, that I don't believe you.

dh@. wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. skrev:
>
> >> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
> >> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain clueless.
> >> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
> >
> >Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as food.
>
> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
> raise for food, that I don't believe you.

Perhaps you could be more specific. If LoL justifies raising
animals for food can you explain why it does not also
justify raising humans for food?

dh@. wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 00:27:15 -0800, "Rupert" > wrote:
>
> >sci.logic is mostly for discussion of mathematical logic. There is also
> >sometimes some discussion of philosophical logic. This discussion is
> >about animal ethics.
>
> It goes way beyond that. The "aras" have been forced to insist that
> life can not be a benefit for anything, amusingly because imaginary
> nonexistent "entities" (ines) can't benefit. What remains a mystery is
> how the inability of ines to benefit from life, prevents living beings from
> benefitting from life. Here's some philosophical logic for you guys, which
> if it applies to animals must apply to all life:

There's an interesting discussion of this issue in Appendix G to Derek
Parfit's "Reasons and Persons". But it's not really philosophical
logic. It's more metaphysics and ethics.

****wit David Harrison lied:

> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison skrev:
>
>
>>> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
>>>how life can have positive value,

Coming into existence is not a "positive value" for any
creature.


>>>you will necessarily remain clueless.

You have ZERO room to talk, ****wit.


>>>That's another fact

Not a fact.


>>Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as food.
>
>
> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
> raise for food,

Coming into existence is not a benefit for humans, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:30:50 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>We should feel good if animals are given good treatment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we have no feelings either way about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We should have feelings about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, why should we deliberately neglect to consider what's in it
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the animals regardless of our own personal interests?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's no valid or constructive reason to consider "what's in it for
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>animals".
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why should we feel good if animals are given good treatment,
>>>>
>>>>Because the alternative is suffering
>>>
>>> Name one example in which the alternative is suffering.
>>
>>If I buy battery eggs I support animal suffering, if I buy free range
>>eggs,
>>I support (relative) animal freedom.
>>
>>>You can't
>>> because there are none.
>>
>>I just did.
>
> LOL. You poor idiot.

Projection is not good ****wit.

>>>The alternative is that life or no life,
>>
>>My examples both included life, in one case a life of suffering, the other
>
> Note that "the other" means a completely different animal,

So what? Why should I care if it's a different animal? Why should anyone?

> even though
> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant that they
> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the Larder"
> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel that
> they
> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....

Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals, each who are
raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I support
the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.

>>a
>>better life.
>
> For completely different animals.

So???

>You might as well be comparing
> battery hens with kangaroos.

Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.

>The alternative still remains life or no
> life for battery hens

No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?

> and life or no life for cage free hens, etc for all
> farm animals.

Immaterial, nobody is going to buy into The Logic of the Larder ****wit.
Give it up and move on.

>
>>> not
>>> that life or a different life. It seems that even you should be able
>>> to undersand that.
>>
>>You're equivocating
>
> No

Yes

> you poor fool, that's what you're trying to do again, as with you're
> imaginary talking "ar" pig, your imaginary human sex slave children and
> your wild mice, frogs and groundhogs.

Those are all references to valid arguments that had the potential to bring
you out of your delusions, if you weren't such a dope.

>
>>or you're badly confused, I'm not sure which.
>
> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain clueless.
> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.

Life having potential "positive value" doesn't help your argument. You still
can't breed animals for food and claim a moral victory at the same time.
It's ethical heresy, moral double-dipping.

dh@. skrev:

> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. skrev:
>
> >> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
> >> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain clueless.
> >> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
> >
> >Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as food.
>
> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
> raise for food, that I don't believe you.

You don't believe me. That's a strange jump.
You say the animals lives are not good anyway.
I guess we could eat people who are very depressed or are handicapped.
Perhaps we can eat the retarded or the very poor. Refugee camps could
be turned into food production farms.

I know. We could feed farm animals the corpses of people who were
suffering alot anyway so we killed them - if we don't do this already,
we do feed them human shit and dead chickens and industrial waste.

I mean those suffereing people, what's death to them.

Get out the chopsticks, baby.

On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. skrev:
>>
>> >> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
>> >> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain clueless.
>> >> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
>> >
>> >Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as food.
>>
>> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
>> raise for food, that I don't believe you.
>
>Perhaps you could be more specific. If LoL justifies raising
>animals for food can you explain why it does not also
>justify raising humans for food?

Maybe it would, but I don't think so for practical reasons, personal reasons
(I personally don't want to eat humans) and because I believe humans would
suffer from knowledge which animals do not. There's more to consider on
that aspect, but if it's meaningless to you then there's no point trying.

On 7 Feb 2006 02:13:59 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. skrev:
>
>> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. skrev:
>>
>> >> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
>> >> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain clueless.
>> >> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
>> >
>> >Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as food.
>>
>> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
>> raise for food, that I don't believe you.
>
>You don't believe me. That's a strange jump.
>You say the animals lives are not good anyway.

Some are. Some are not. I find it hard to believe so many of you seem
to be unaware of that aspect.

>I guess we could eat people who are very depressed or are handicapped.
>Perhaps we can eat the retarded or the very poor. Refugee camps could
>be turned into food production farms.
>
>I know. We could feed farm animals the corpses of people who were
>suffering alot anyway so we killed them - if we don't do this already,
>we do feed them human shit and dead chickens and industrial waste.
>
>I mean those suffereing people, what's death to them.

Why aren't they allowed to decide? If suicide were legal, you can
bet there'd be a lot more of it. But that's an important aspect too, or
really another aspect of the main one which is whether or not life has
positive value to the individuals. Some people in a particular situation
would rather be that way than die, and other people in a similar situation
would rather die than be that way. The situations are not the "same"
though because of the mental condition of the individuals, which
causes them to interpret whether their lives are of positive value
differently. The same is true for animals, but livestock have been bred to
thrive in the environments they're raised in, so hopefully life has postive
value for the great majority of them.

>Get out the chopsticks, baby.

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:24:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>>>>The alternative is that life or no life,
>>>
>>>My examples both included life, in one case a life of suffering, the other
>>
>> Note that "the other" means a completely different animal,
>
>So what? Why should I care if it's a different animal?

The alternative is that life or no life for all of them, not that life or a
somehow better life as you stupidly try to pretend.

>Why should anyone?

Those of us who do, do because it's true. You can't understand.

>> even though
>> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant that they
>> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the Larder"
>> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
>> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel that
>> they
>> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
>
>Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,

No they are NOT! NO pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will be
killed, much as you "ar" fantasisers want everyone to believe that they do.

>each who are
>raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I support
>the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
>
>>>a
>>>better life.
>>
>> For completely different animals.
>
>So???
>
>>You might as well be comparing
>> battery hens with kangaroos.
>
>Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
>
>>The alternative still remains life or no
>> life for battery hens
>
>No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?

Yes. But I also feel that life of positive value is a good thing,
which you do not.

>> and life or no life for cage free hens, etc for all
>> farm animals.
>
>Immaterial, nobody is going to buy into The Logic of the Larder

"when their life is a fairly happy one" - Salt

The Logic of the Larder = Decent Animal Welfare

>****wit.
>Give it up and move on.

Tell me why we should accept The Logic of Livestock Hatred
over decent AW.

>>>> not
>>>> that life or a different life. It seems that even you should be able
>>>> to undersand that.
>>>
>>>You're equivocating
>>
>> No
>
>Yes
>
>> you poor fool, that's what you're trying to do again, as with you're
>> imaginary talking "ar" pig, your imaginary human sex slave children and
>> your wild mice, frogs and groundhogs.
>
>Those are all references to valid arguments

They are grotesque "ar" fantasies and indulgence in your own
particular interest in a few types of wildlife, but nothing more.

>that had the potential to bring
>you out of your delusions,

They ARE delusions you poor moron. You amusingly believe that
your "ar" grotesqueries somehow magically refute the fact that some
livestock have lives of positive value, but they don't. Nor does your
strange support of mice, frogs and groundhogs.

You/"aras" need to read up on your hero's shit a little more too btw,
because he mostly suggests the land be used for more humans:

"there is the practical consideration that a far greater number of human lives can be supported on a
grain and fruit-growing district than on one which rears cattle; so that if a larger area of England
were devoted to the rearing of "livestock," we should actually be lessening human life that there
might be more beef and mutton; that is, we should be increasing the lower existence at the expense
of the higher." - Salt

****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:24:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied
> >> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>
> >>>>The alternative is that life or no life,
> >>>
> >>>My examples both included life, in one case a life of suffering, the other
> >>
> >> Note that "the other" means a completely different animal,
> >
> >So what? Why should I care if it's a different animal?
>
> The alternative is that life or no life for all of them,

Getting to experience life is not a benefit.


> >Why should anyone?
>
> Those of us who do,

That's not an answer to what he asked, ****wit, you ****hair. *Why* do
you care? Why do you wrongly believe that "getting to experience life"
is a benefit that ought not be withheld from animals who don't yet
exist?


> >> even though
> >> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant that they
> >> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the Larder"
> >> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
> >> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel that
> >> they are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
> >
> >Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,
>
> No they are NOT!

Yes, they most certainly are comparable.


> >each who are
> >raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I support
> >the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
> >
> >>>a
> >>>better life.
> >>
> >> For completely different animals.
> >
> >So???
> >
> >>You might as well be comparing
> >> battery hens with kangaroos.
> >
> >Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
> >
> >>The alternative still remains life or no
> >> life for battery hens
> >
> >No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?
>
> Yes.

No, you don't.


> >> and life or no life for cage free hens, etc for all
> >> farm animals.
> >
> >Immaterial, nobody is going to buy into The Logic of the Larder
>
> "when their life is a fairly happy one" - Salt
>
> The Logic of the Larder =

illogical sophistry.


> >****wit.
> >Give it up and move on.
>
> Tell me why we should accept The Logic of Livestock Hatred
> over decent AW.

Tell us why livestock "ought" to exist. Whose moral interest is being
served by causing livestock to exist? Hint: it's *not* the
livestock's.


> >>>> not
> >>>> that life or a different life. It seems that even you should be able
> >>>> to undersand that.
> >>>
> >>>You're equivocating
> >>
> >> No
> >
> >Yes
> >
> >> you poor fool, that's what you're trying to do again, as with you're
> >> imaginary talking "ar" pig, your imaginary human sex slave children and
> >> your wild mice, frogs and groundhogs.
> >
> >Those are all references to valid arguments
>
> They are grotesque "ar" fantasies

No. They are logically sound allegories and analogies.


> >that had the potential to bring
> >you out of your delusions,
>
> They ARE delusions

Yes, *everything* you believe about animals is a delusion, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >dh@. skrev:
>>>
>>> >> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can
>>> >> learn
>>> >> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain
>>> >> clueless.
>>> >> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
>>> >
>>> >Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as
>>> >food.
>>>
>>> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
>>> raise for food, that I don't believe you.
>>
>>Perhaps you could be more specific. If LoL justifies raising
>>animals for food can you explain why it does not also
>>justify raising humans for food?
>
> Maybe it would,

It does.

> but I don't think so for practical reasons, personal reasons
> (I personally don't want to eat humans) and because I believe humans would
> suffer from knowledge which animals do not. There's more to consider on
> that aspect, but if it's meaningless to you then there's no point trying.

If someone raised humans for food we would never consider that "at least
those humans got to experience life". That would demonstrate the epitomy of
disrespect for those humans. The same reasoning applies to The LoL and
livestock. The Logic of the Larder is the most disrespectful possible way of
looking at the process of raising animals for food.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:24:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>
>>>>>The alternative is that life or no life,
>>>>
>>>>My examples both included life, in one case a life of suffering, the
>>>>other
>>>
>>> Note that "the other" means a completely different animal,
>>
>>So what? Why should I care if it's a different animal?
>
> The alternative is that life or no life for all of them,

But it's a life for another animal. Where's the loss?

> not that life or a
> somehow better life as you stupidly try to pretend.

It's a better animal life, that's a fact.

>>Why should anyone?
>
> Those of us who do, do because it's true. You can't understand.

I understand that you are spinning in circles trying to justify The Logic of
the Larder and it's not working.

>>> even though
>>> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant that
>>> they
>>> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the
>>> Larder"
>>> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
>>> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel that
>>> they
>>> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
>>
>>Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,
>
> No they are NOT! NO pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will be
> killed, much as you "ar" fantasisers want everyone to believe that they
> do.

I meant that free range and battery hens are comparable animals. It's good
to choose one over the other.

>>each who are
>>raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I
>>support
>>the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
>>
>>>>a
>>>>better life.
>>>
>>> For completely different animals.
>>
>>So???
>>
>>>You might as well be comparing
>>> battery hens with kangaroos.
>>
>>Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
>>
>>>The alternative still remains life or no
>>> life for battery hens
>>
>>No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?
>
> Yes.

So why can't you understand the reasoning of ARAs who judge ALL livestock
lives to be that unacceptable, therefore say "No life for all livestock is a
GOOD thing"?

> But I also feel that life of positive value is a good thing,
> which you do not.

That depends on your definition of a good life, and it still doesn't support
the Logic of the Larder.

dh@. wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. skrev:
> >>
> >> >> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
> >> >> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain clueless.
> >> >> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
> >> >
> >> >Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as food.
> >>
> >> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
> >> raise for food, that I don't believe you.
> >
> >Perhaps you could be more specific. If LoL justifies raising
> >animals for food can you explain why it does not also
> >justify raising humans for food?
>
> Maybe it would, but I don't think so for practical reasons, personal reasons
> (I personally don't want to eat humans) and because I believe humans would
> suffer from knowledge which animals do not.

There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
for
food.

> There's more to consider on
> that aspect, but if it's meaningless to you then there's no point trying.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:27:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:24:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>
>>>>>>The alternative is that life or no life,
>>>>>
>>>>>My examples both included life, in one case a life of suffering, the
>>>>>other
>>>>
>>>> Note that "the other" means a completely different animal,
>>>
>>>So what? Why should I care if it's a different animal?
>>
>> The alternative is that life or no life for all of them,
>
>But it's a life for another animal. Where's the loss?
>
>> not that life or a
>> somehow better life as you stupidly try to pretend.
>
>It's a better animal life, that's a fact.
>
>>>Why should anyone?
>>
>> Those of us who do, do because it's true. You can't understand.
>
>I understand that you are spinning in circles trying to justify The Logic of
>the Larder and it's not working.

You can't understand how life can have positive value for any farm
animals, and therefore can't understand how LoL = decent AW are
of positive value for any farm animals.

>>>> even though
>>>> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant that
>>>> they
>>>> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the
>>>> Larder"
>>>> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
>>>> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel that
>>>> they
>>>> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
>>>
>>>Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,
>>
>> No they are NOT! NO pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will be
>> killed, much as you "ar" fantasisers want everyone to believe that they
>> do.
>
>I meant that free range and battery hens are comparable animals. It's good
>to choose one over the other.

All you can do is deliberately promote life for one or the other, or not.
You can't contribute to better lives for any of them. If you were really
interested in AW you would have understood that for years, instead of
denying it as you do. And of course the most likely reason you deny
facts is because they oppose "ar". There is no other reason for you
to do so.

>>>each who are
>>>raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I
>>>support
>>>the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
>>>
>>>>>a
>>>>>better life.
>>>>
>>>> For completely different animals.
>>>
>>>So???
>>>
>>>>You might as well be comparing
>>>> battery hens with kangaroos.
>>>
>>>Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
>>>
>>>>The alternative still remains life or no
>>>> life for battery hens
>>>
>>>No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>So why can't you understand the reasoning of ARAs who judge ALL livestock
>lives to be that unacceptable, therefore say "No life for all livestock is a
>GOOD thing"?

I do understand it. I also understand reasons why they're wrong, that
you/"they" do not.

>> But I also feel that life of positive value is a good thing,
>> which you do not.
>
>That depends on your definition of a good life, and it still doesn't support
>the Logic of the Larder.

The LoL only applys "when their life is a fairly happy one", so yes
it most certainly does apply. But it is expected and proven that you
lie about it.

On 7 Feb 2006 19:29:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. skrev:
>> >>
>> >> >> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can learn
>> >> >> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain clueless.
>> >> >> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
>> >> >
>> >> >Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as food.
>> >>
>> >> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals we
>> >> raise for food, that I don't believe you.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you could be more specific. If LoL justifies raising
>> >animals for food can you explain why it does not also
>> >justify raising humans for food?
>>
>> Maybe it would, but I don't think so for practical reasons, personal reasons
>> (I personally don't want to eat humans) and because I believe humans would
>> suffer from knowledge which animals do not.
>
>There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
>for food.

If you want to try to show that it would be the same thing somehow,
then you need to provide some details about your fantasy if you want to
make some kind of point about it. Provide these details to begin with:

1. how long would they live?
2. how would they be kept?
3. how would they be fed?
4. what would they be fed?
5. how would their waste be dealt with?

>> There's more to consider on
>> that aspect, but if it's meaningless to you then there's no point trying.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:18:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>If someone raised humans for food we would never consider that "at least
>those humans got to experience life". That would demonstrate the epitomy of
>disrespect for those humans.

What kind of horrible conditions would you keep them in, making their
lives unworthy of consideration?

>The same reasoning applies to The LoL and
>livestock. The Logic of the Larder is the most disrespectful possible way of
>looking at the process of raising animals for food.

The LoL applies only "when their life is a fairly happy one." As yet none
of you "aras", including your hero, have given any good reason to disregard
the lives of animals when they have positive value, or are "fairly happy".

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:27:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:24:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:ep9cu1p9rocb42ovat1a2ufd1ni7dr58mr@4ax. com...
>>>
>>>>>>>The alternative is that life or no life,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My examples both included life, in one case a life of suffering, the
>>>>>>other
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that "the other" means a completely different animal,
>>>>
>>>>So what? Why should I care if it's a different animal?
>>>
>>> The alternative is that life or no life for all of them,
>>
>>But it's a life for another animal. Where's the loss?
>>
>>> not that life or a
>>> somehow better life as you stupidly try to pretend.
>>
>>It's a better animal life, that's a fact.
>>
>>>>Why should anyone?
>>>
>>> Those of us who do, do because it's true. You can't understand.
>>
>>I understand that you are spinning in circles trying to justify The Logic
>>of
>>the Larder and it's not working.
>
> You can't understand how life can have positive value for any farm
> animals, and therefore can't understand how LoL = decent AW are
> of positive value for any farm animals.

Because it doesn't, LoL does not *require* any concern for AW as you have
demonstrated. "Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would have
if 'you/ARAs' get your way."

>
>>>>> even though
>>>>> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant that
>>>>> they
>>>>> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the
>>>>> Larder"
>>>>> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
>>>>> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel
>>>>> that
>>>>> they
>>>>> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
>>>>
>>>>Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,
>>>
>>> No they are NOT! NO pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will be
>>> killed, much as you "ar" fantasisers want everyone to believe that they
>>> do.
>>
>>I meant that free range and battery hens are comparable animals. It's good
>>to choose one over the other.
>
> All you can do is deliberately promote life for one or the other, or
> not.

That's what AW means.

> You can't contribute to better lives for any of them.

What's your point, that nobody should care?

> If you were really
> interested in AW you would have understood that for years, instead of
> denying it as you do.

You aren't making a significant point. I am not going to lose sleep worrying
that I can't help a battery hen in some barn, all I can do as a consumer
interested in AW is to stop demanding eggs produced that way.

I am glad the free-range hens have better lives than battery hens, but
that's not a motivation for me to consume more eggs, that's absurd, it's a
motivation to avoid the bad producers.

> And of course the most likely reason you deny
> facts is because they oppose "ar". There is no other reason for you
> to do so.

I oppose "ar" but I could withhold support for battery egg production
whether I did or not.

>>>>each who are
>>>>raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I
>>>>support
>>>>the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>better life.
>>>>>
>>>>> For completely different animals.
>>>>
>>>>So???
>>>>
>>>>>You might as well be comparing
>>>>> battery hens with kangaroos.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
>>>>
>>>>>The alternative still remains life or no
>>>>> life for battery hens
>>>>
>>>>No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>So why can't you understand the reasoning of ARAs who judge ALL livestock
>>lives to be that unacceptable, therefore say "No life for all livestock is
>>a
>>GOOD thing"?
>
> I do understand it.

It's exactly the same logic you use for withdrawing support for battery
hens, you believe their lives are not worth living.

> I also understand reasons why they're wrong, that
> you/"they" do not.

What do you mean by "they're wrong"? They are making a value judgment about
the lives of animals, just as you do. How can that be wrong?

>>> But I also feel that life of positive value is a good thing,
>>> which you do not.
>>
>>That depends on your definition of a good life, and it still doesn't
>>support
>>the Logic of the Larder.
>
> The LoL only applys "when their life is a fairly happy one",
> so yes
> it most certainly does apply.

It *should* only apply when their lives are happy, but you constantly refer
to the billions of animals raised for food without such a distinction. Where
is your argument that we should avoid all animal products when "their lives
are fairly UNhappy"?

> But it is expected and proven that you
> lie about it.

In future I expect that you will admonish us all to avoid meat unless we can
be sure that "their life is a fairly happy one".

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 7 Feb 2006 19:29:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >dh@. wrote:
>>> >> On 6 Feb 2006 07:48:54 -0800, wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >dh@. skrev:
>>> >>
>>> >> >> You are clueless, that much we know for sure. Unless you can
>>> >> >> learn
>>> >> >> how life can have positive value, you will necessarily remain
>>> >> >> clueless.
>>> >> >> That's another fact you hate, but it remains none the less.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Your arguements apply equally well - read: not very - to humans as
>>> >> >food.
>>> >>
>>> >> Humans are different enough in significant ways from the animals
>>> >> we
>>> >> raise for food, that I don't believe you.
>>> >
>>> >Perhaps you could be more specific. If LoL justifies raising
>>> >animals for food can you explain why it does not also
>>> >justify raising humans for food?
>>>
>>> Maybe it would, but I don't think so for practical reasons, personal
>>> reasons
>>> (I personally don't want to eat humans) and because I believe humans
>>> would
>>> suffer from knowledge which animals do not.
>>
>>There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
>>for food.
>
> If you want to try to show that it would be the same thing somehow,
> then you need to provide some details

No details are necessary, the principle is exactly the same.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:18:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>If someone raised humans for food we would never consider that "at least
>>those humans got to experience life". That would demonstrate the epitomy
>>of
>>disrespect for those humans.
>
> What kind of horrible conditions would you keep them in, making their
> lives unworthy of consideration?

Even if they were kept in a five-star hotel before being led off to
slaughter, to say about them, "at least they got to experience life" would
demonstrate the epitomy of disrespect for them as indivduals and for their
lives. It would clearly be an attempt at self-justification by those
cannibal-food producers, exactly as The Logic of the Larder is.

>>The same reasoning applies to The LoL and
>>livestock. The Logic of the Larder is the most disrespectful possible way
>>of
>>looking at the process of raising animals for food.
>
> The LoL applies only "when their life is a fairly happy one."

You never exclude animals in your arguments which are "fairly unhappy" when
referring to the "billions", or attempt to define any such concept to give
it meaning.

> As yet none
> of you "aras", including your hero, have given any good reason to
> disregard
> the lives of animals when they have positive value, or are "fairly happy".

"Regarding" their lives does not have to include the self-justification, "at
least they got to experience life", that would demonstrate the epitomy of
disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:19:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:18:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>If someone raised humans for food we would never consider that "at least
>>>those humans got to experience life". That would demonstrate the epitomy
>>>of
>>>disrespect for those humans.
>>
>> What kind of horrible conditions would you keep them in, making their
>> lives unworthy of consideration?
>
>Even if they were kept in a five-star hotel before being led off to
>slaughter, to say about them, "at least they got to experience life" would
>demonstrate the epitomy of disrespect for them as indivduals and for their
>lives. It would clearly be an attempt at self-justification by those
>cannibal-food producers, exactly as The Logic of the Larder is.
>
>>>The same reasoning applies to The LoL and
>>>livestock. The Logic of the Larder is the most disrespectful possible way
>>>of
>>>looking at the process of raising animals for food.
>>
>> The LoL applies only "when their life is a fairly happy one."
>
>You never exclude animals in your arguments which are "fairly unhappy" when
>referring to the "billions", or attempt to define any such concept to give
>it meaning.

Of course not. Since you/"aras" don't think their lives should EVER
be given positive consideration, it would be stupid to even try to
discuss when they do and when they don't with people who feel that
they *never* do. LOL....just the concept of trying is pretty amusing...

>> As yet none
>> of you "aras", including your hero, have given any good reason to
>> disregard
>> the lives of animals when they have positive value, or are "fairly happy".
>
>"Regarding" their lives. . . would demonstrate the epitomy of
>disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.

Of course I feel the complete opposite, and that: Considering their
lives is the very first, most basic and necessary thing in regards to
AW. That's why of course I could *neve*r consider you as having
the slightest interest in AW. And again of course, I MUST consider
you and Goo to be the most obvious and deliberate opponents
of AW that I've ever encountered, or ever even heard of.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:12:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On 7 Feb 2006 19:29:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>>>There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
>>>for food.
>>
>> If you want to try to show that it would be the same thing somehow,
>> then you need to provide some details
>
>No details are necessary

You always have to quit when it gets down to details. ALWAYS!

****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:

> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:12:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied
>>
>>>On 7 Feb 2006 19:29:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied
>>>>
>>>>>On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
>>>>for food.
>>>
>>> If you want to try to show that it would be the same thing somehow,
>>>then you need to provide some details
>>
>>No details are necessary
>
>
> You always

He always beats you. Always.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:10:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:27:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:24:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:ep9cu1p9rocb42ovat1a2ufd1ni7dr58mr@4ax .com...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>The alternative is that life or no life,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My examples both included life, in one case a life of suffering, the
>>>>>>>other
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that "the other" means a completely different animal,
>>>>>
>>>>>So what? Why should I care if it's a different animal?
>>>>
>>>> The alternative is that life or no life for all of them,
>>>
>>>But it's a life for another animal. Where's the loss?
>>>
>>>> not that life or a
>>>> somehow better life as you stupidly try to pretend.
>>>
>>>It's a better animal life, that's a fact.
>>>
>>>>>Why should anyone?
>>>>
>>>> Those of us who do, do because it's true. You can't understand.
>>>
>>>I understand that you are spinning in circles trying to justify The Logic
>>>of
>>>the Larder and it's not working.
>>
>> You can't understand how life can have positive value for any farm
>> animals, and therefore can't understand how LoL = decent AW are
>> of positive value for any farm animals.
>
>Because it doesn't, LoL does not *require* any concern for AW

That's a lie.

>as you have
>demonstrated. "Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would have
>if 'you/ARAs' get your way."

I don't believe I ever wrote that. I believe you're just lying AGAIN.

>>>>>> even though
>>>>>> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the
>>>>>> Larder"
>>>>>> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
>>>>>> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,
>>>>
>>>> No they are NOT! NO pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will be
>>>> killed, much as you "ar" fantasisers want everyone to believe that they
>>>> do.
>>>
>>>I meant that free range and battery hens are comparable animals. It's good
>>>to choose one over the other.
>>
>> All you can do is deliberately promote life for one or the other, or
>> not.
>
>That's what AW means.
>
>> You can't contribute to better lives for any of them.
>
>What's your point, that nobody should care?

My point is that it's the life they get or no life for all of them, as
I've been saying over and over, so that's how people need to think
about it because that's the way it IS.

>> If you were really
>> interested in AW you would have understood that for years, instead of
>> denying it as you do.
>
>You aren't making a significant point.

Your "understanding" of it is obviously not to the extent that you can
understand why it's significant.

>I am not going to lose sleep worrying
>that I can't help a battery hen in some barn, all I can do as a consumer
>interested in AW is to stop demanding eggs produced that way.
>
>I am glad the free-range hens have better lives than battery hens, but
>that's not a motivation for me to consume more eggs, that's absurd, it's a
>motivation to avoid the bad producers.
>
>> And of course the most likely reason you deny
>> facts is because they oppose "ar". There is no other reason for you
>> to do so.
>
>I oppose "ar" but I could withhold support for battery egg production
>whether I did or not.
>
>>>>>each who are
>>>>>raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I
>>>>>support
>>>>>the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>better life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For completely different animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>So???
>>>>>
>>>>>>You might as well be comparing
>>>>>> battery hens with kangaroos.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>The alternative still remains life or no
>>>>>> life for battery hens
>>>>>
>>>>>No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>So why can't you understand the reasoning of ARAs who judge ALL livestock
>>>lives to be that unacceptable, therefore say "No life for all livestock is
>>>a
>>>GOOD thing"?
>>
>> I do understand it.
>
>It's exactly the same logic you use for withdrawing support for battery
>hens, you believe their lives are not worth living.
>
>> I also understand reasons why they're wrong, that
>> you/"they" do not.
>
>What do you mean by "they're wrong"? They are making a value judgment about
>the lives of animals, just as you do. How can that be wrong?

Because it's based on your/"their" belief that all of their lives are
so horrible that none of them are worth living. You believe none of
them are of positive value to the animals.

>>>> But I also feel that life of positive value is a good thing,
>>>> which you do not.
>>>
>>>That depends on your definition of a good life, and it still doesn't
>>>support
>>>the Logic of the Larder.
>>
>> The LoL only applys "when their life is a fairly happy one",
>> so yes
>> it most certainly does apply.
>
>It *should* only apply when their lives are happy, but you constantly refer
>to the billions of animals raised for food without such a distinction.

That's the first step is in considering their lives. You and Goo have spent
the past 5 or 6 years insisting that we never take that first step, so of
course it's a waste of time going into any details with people who insist
the subject should not even be considered. DUH! Damn Dutch!!!

>Where
>is your argument that we should avoid all animal products when "their lives
>are fairly UNhappy"?

How could people like you Goos/"aras" possibly even consider when
animals lives should or should not be avoided, when you don't feel that
any of them should ever be considered in a positive way? You could NOT,
you poor sad fool.

>> But it is expected and proven that you
>> lie about it.
>
>In future I expect that you will admonish us all to avoid meat unless we can
>be sure that "their life is a fairly happy one".

It's a quality of the LoL, but obviously not of Meat Hatred.

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:10:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:27:30 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>****wit David Harrison lied:
> >>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:24:49 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
> om...
> >>>>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
> >>>>>>>news:ep9cu1p9rocb42ovat1a2ufd1ni7dr58mr@4ax .com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>The alternative is that life or no life,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>My examples both included life, in one case a life of suffering, the
> >>>>>>>other
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that "the other" means a completely different animal,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So what? Why should I care if it's a different animal?
> >>>>
> >>>> The alternative is that life or no life for all of them,
> >>>
> >>>But it's a life for another animal. Where's the loss?
> >>>
> >>>> not that life or a
> >>>> somehow better life as you stupidly try to pretend.
> >>>
> >>>It's a better animal life, that's a fact.
> >>>
> >>>>>Why should anyone?
> >>>>
> >>>> Those of us who do, do because it's true. You can't understand.
> >>>
> >>>I understand that you are spinning in circles trying to justify The Logic
> >>>of
> >>>the Larder and it's not working.
> >>
> >> You can't understand how life can have positive value for any farm
> >> animals, and therefore can't understand how LoL = decent AW are
> >> of positive value for any farm animals.
> >
> >Because it doesn't, LoL does not *require* any concern for AW
>
> That's a lie.

It's not a lie. The IlLogic of the Larder *only* requires that one
think "getting to experience life" is a benefit. You think that.


> >as you have
> >demonstrated. "Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would have
> >if 'you/ARAs' get your way."
>
> I don't believe I ever wrote that.

*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
****wit - 09/04/1999

Dutch got it close enough.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:19:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:18:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>If someone raised humans for food we would never consider that "at least
>>>>those humans got to experience life". That would demonstrate the epitomy
>>>>of
>>>>disrespect for those humans.
>>>
>>> What kind of horrible conditions would you keep them in, making their
>>> lives unworthy of consideration?
>>
>>Even if they were kept in a five-star hotel before being led off to
>>slaughter, to say about them, "at least they got to experience life" would
>>demonstrate the epitomy of disrespect for them as indivduals and for their
>>lives. It would clearly be an attempt at self-justification by those
>>cannibal-food producers, exactly as The Logic of the Larder is.

No response...

>>>>The same reasoning applies to The LoL and
>>>>livestock. The Logic of the Larder is the most disrespectful possible
>>>>way
>>>>of
>>>>looking at the process of raising animals for food.
>>>
>>> The LoL applies only "when their life is a fairly happy one."
>>
>>You never exclude animals in your arguments which are "fairly unhappy"
>>when
>>referring to the "billions", or attempt to define any such concept to give
>>it meaning.
>
> Of course not.

Because you can't.

> Since you/"aras" don't think their lives should EVER
> be given positive consideration, it would be stupid to even try to
> discuss when they do and when they don't with people who feel that
> they *never* do. LOL....just the concept of trying is pretty amusing...

You leave your argument devoid of meaningful details then blame everyone
else.. I see.


>>> As yet none
>>> of you "aras", including your hero, have given any good reason to
>>> disregard
>>> the lives of animals when they have positive value, or are "fairly
>>> happy".
>>
>>"Regarding" their lives. . . would demonstrate the epitomy of
>>disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.

What's with the "..." in the middle of my quote, you dishonest piece of
shit?

Here's what I actually said,

"Regarding" their lives does not have to include the self-justification, "at
least they got to experience life", that would demonstrate the epitomy of
disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.

Why did you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said ****wit? Truth
hurt?

You ****ing loser.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:12:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On 7 Feb 2006 19:29:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>>>There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
>>>>for food.
>>>
>>> If you want to try to show that it would be the same thing somehow,
>>> then you need to provide some details
>>
>>No details are necessary
>
> You always have to quit when it gets down to details. ALWAYS!

It's the same reasoning, there is no need for details. You're just stalling
again.

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:10:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]


>>as you have
>>demonstrated. "Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would
>>have
>>if 'you/ARAs' get your way."
>
> I don't believe I ever wrote that. I believe you're just lying AGAIN.

What do you disagree with in that quote?


>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the
>>>>>>> Larder"
>>>>>>> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
>>>>>>> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,
>>>>>
>>>>> No they are NOT! NO pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will
>>>>> be
>>>>> killed, much as you "ar" fantasisers want everyone to believe that
>>>>> they
>>>>> do.
>>>>
>>>>I meant that free range and battery hens are comparable animals. It's
>>>>good
>>>>to choose one over the other.
>>>
>>> All you can do is deliberately promote life for one or the other, or
>>> not.
>>
>>That's what AW means.
>>
>>> You can't contribute to better lives for any of them.
>>
>>What's your point, that nobody should care?
>
> My point is that it's the life they get or no life for all of them, as
> I've been saying over and over, so that's how people need to think
> about it because that's the way it IS.

How is that any different that the quote above to which you violenlt
objected?

[..]

>>I am not going to lose sleep worrying
>>that I can't help a battery hen in some barn, all I can do as a consumer
>>interested in AW is to stop demanding eggs produced that way.
>>
>>I am glad the free-range hens have better lives than battery hens, but
>>that's not a motivation for me to consume more eggs, that's absurd, it's a
>>motivation to avoid the bad producers.
>>
>>> And of course the most likely reason you deny
>>> facts is because they oppose "ar". There is no other reason for you
>>> to do so.
>>
>>I oppose "ar" but I could withhold support for battery egg production
>>whether I did or not.

whoooossshhhhh!

>>
>>>>>>each who are
>>>>>>raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I
>>>>>>support
>>>>>>the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>better life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For completely different animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You might as well be comparing
>>>>>>> battery hens with kangaroos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The alternative still remains life or no
>>>>>>> life for battery hens
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>So why can't you understand the reasoning of ARAs who judge ALL
>>>>livestock
>>>>lives to be that unacceptable, therefore say "No life for all livestock
>>>>is
>>>>a
>>>>GOOD thing"?
>>>
>>> I do understand it.
>>
>>It's exactly the same logic you use for withdrawing support for battery
>>hens, you believe their lives are not worth living.


whooossshhhh!


>>> I also understand reasons why they're wrong, that
>>> you/"they" do not.
>>
>>What do you mean by "they're wrong"? They are making a value judgment
>>about
>>the lives of animals, just as you do. How can that be wrong?
>
> Because it's based on your/"their" belief that all of their lives are
> so horrible that none of them are worth living. You believe none of
> them are of positive value to the animals.

ARAs believe it, how is that wrong?

>
>>>>> But I also feel that life of positive value is a good thing,
>>>>> which you do not.
>>>>
>>>>That depends on your definition of a good life, and it still doesn't
>>>>support
>>>>the Logic of the Larder.
>>>
>>> The LoL only applys "when their life is a fairly happy one",
>>> so yes
>>> it most certainly does apply.
>>
>>It *should* only apply when their lives are happy, but you constantly
>>refer
>>to the billions of animals raised for food without such a distinction.
>
> That's the first step is in considering their lives.

It's the only step *required* in the LoL. If I believed that any life was
better than no life at all I could employ the LoL to justify ALL meat
production, which is what you do in your sloppy, equivocating way.

You and Goo have spent
> the past 5 or 6 years insisting that we never take that first step, so of
> course it's a waste of time going into any details with people who insist
> the subject should not even be considered. DUH! Damn Dutch!!!

I see, have no argument then blame everyone else...

[..]

>>In future I expect that you will admonish us all to avoid meat unless we
>>can
>>be sure that "their life is a fairly happy one".
>
> It's a quality of the LoL, but obviously not of Meat Hatred.

Is that a yes?

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:31:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@. pointed out:

>> Since you/"aras" don't think their lives should EVER
>> be given positive consideration, it would be stupid to even try to
>> discuss when they do and when they don't with people who feel that
>> they *never* do. LOL....just the concept of trying is pretty amusing...
>
>You leave your argument devoid of meaningful details

The fact that you can't distinguish between when animals' lives may
or may not be of positive value to the animals, is meaningless to you
but of the utmost significance to me, you poor dumb ass.

It is not possible for you/"aras" to distinguish between when farm
animals lives are of positive or negative value to the animals,
BECAUSE you/"they" believe that NONE of them are or could be of
posiive value to the animals.

>then blame everyone
>else.. I see.

It's your ****ing choice, not mine. Don't start trying to blame me
because animals' lives have no significance to you, much less can
you consider what significance they have to the animals. That is
entirely YOUR fault, not mine.

>>>> As yet none
>>>> of you "aras", including your hero, have given any good reason to
>>>> disregard
>>>> the lives of animals when they have positive value, or are "fairly
>>>> happy".
>>>
>>>"Regarding" their lives. . . would demonstrate the epitomy of
>>>disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.
>
>What's with the "..." in the middle of my quote,

I just removed your obsessive concern with your imaginary browny
points because I'm sick as hell of you crying about them all the time.

>you dishonest piece of shit?

Oh okay you baby, you can have one browny point, not that you
earned it, but just "take" it or whatever you do with it and from now
on shut the **** up about it.

>Here's what I actually said,
>
>"Regarding" their lives does not have to include the self-justification, "at
>least they got to experience life", that would demonstrate the epitomy of
>disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.
>
>Why did you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said ****wit? Truth
>hurt?

The fact that you ONLY care about your browny points doesn't hurt
Doutche, it disgusts, so I removed it. And very VERY amusingly the ONLY
thing you care about again is getting them put back. SO funny!!!

>
>You ****ing loser.

LOL! ALL you can think about is YOUR browny points. You HILARIOUSLY
don't even have a clue how very much your stupid "browny points" show
disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives! LOL!!!

One browny point and that's all you get...lol...and you didn't get it
because you earned it, you only get it because you keep crying about
it. So shut the **** up about it. Oh, then you don't have anything else
left to cry about.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:32:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:12:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On 7 Feb 2006 19:29:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
>>>>>for food.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to try to show that it would be the same thing somehow,
>>>> then you need to provide some details
>>>
>>>No details are necessary
>>
>> You always have to quit when it gets down to details. ALWAYS!
>
>It's the same reasoning, there is no need for details.

Not to you, because quality of life is meaningless to you.

>You're just stalling again.
>

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:47:57 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:10:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>[..]
>
>
>>>as you have
>>>demonstrated. "Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would
>>>have
>>>if 'you/ARAs' get your way."
>>
>> I don't believe I ever wrote that. I believe you're just lying AGAIN.
>
>What do you disagree with in that quote?

That I wrote it.

>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the
>>>>>>>> Larder"
>>>>>>>> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans, know
>>>>>>>> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and feel
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No they are NOT! NO pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> killed, much as you "ar" fantasisers want everyone to believe that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>>I meant that free range and battery hens are comparable animals. It's
>>>>>good
>>>>>to choose one over the other.
>>>>
>>>> All you can do is deliberately promote life for one or the other, or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>>That's what AW means.
>>>
>>>> You can't contribute to better lives for any of them.
>>>
>>>What's your point, that nobody should care?
>>
>> My point is that it's the life they get or no life for all of them, as
>> I've been saying over and over, so that's how people need to think
>> about it because that's the way it IS.
>
>How is that any different that the quote above to which you violenlt
>objected?

It doesn't specify whether the lives are good or bad. You wouldn't
understand such details though.

>[..]
>
>>>I am not going to lose sleep worrying
>>>that I can't help a battery hen in some barn, all I can do as a consumer
>>>interested in AW is to stop demanding eggs produced that way.
>>>
>>>I am glad the free-range hens have better lives than battery hens, but
>>>that's not a motivation for me to consume more eggs, that's absurd, it's a
>>>motivation to avoid the bad producers.
>>>
>>>> And of course the most likely reason you deny
>>>> facts is because they oppose "ar". There is no other reason for you
>>>> to do so.
>>>
>>>I oppose "ar" but I could withhold support for battery egg production
>>>whether I did or not.
>
>whoooossshhhhh!

It was a lie. You support "ar".

>>>>>>>each who are
>>>>>>>raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I
>>>>>>>support
>>>>>>>the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>better life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For completely different animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You might as well be comparing
>>>>>>>> battery hens with kangaroos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The alternative still remains life or no
>>>>>>>> life for battery hens
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>So why can't you understand the reasoning of ARAs who judge ALL
>>>>>livestock
>>>>>lives to be that unacceptable, therefore say "No life for all livestock
>>>>>is
>>>>>a
>>>>>GOOD thing"?
>>>>
>>>> I do understand it.
>>>
>>>It's exactly the same logic you use for withdrawing support for battery
>>>hens, you believe their lives are not worth living.
>
>
>whooossshhhh!

You're a retard. I told you I understood to begin with, so your stupid
explanation was not worth your time, much less mine to reply to it. So
now I'm pointing out that you're acting even more stupid. Idiot.

>>>> I also understand reasons why they're wrong, that
>>>> you/"they" do not.
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "they're wrong"? They are making a value judgment
>>>about
>>>the lives of animals, just as you do. How can that be wrong?
>>
>> Because it's based on your/"their" belief that all of their lives are
>> so horrible that none of them are worth living. You believe none of
>> them are of positive value to the animals.
>
>ARAs believe it, how is that wrong?

You pretend that you used to understand it:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
so pretend that you still can and see if you can explain it. If you can't,
then you're not capable of understanding how they're wrong, or your
own paste, so there's probably no chance you'll ever be able to understand
"again". How could you possibly learn to understand something that you
hilariously insist you understood in the past, but can't understand now?

>>>>>> But I also feel that life of positive value is a good thing,
>>>>>> which you do not.
>>>>>
>>>>>That depends on your definition of a good life, and it still doesn't
>>>>>support
>>>>>the Logic of the Larder.
>>>>
>>>> The LoL only applys "when their life is a fairly happy one",
>>>> so yes
>>>> it most certainly does apply.
>>>
>>>It *should* only apply when their lives are happy, but you constantly
>>>refer
>>>to the billions of animals raised for food without such a distinction.
>>
>> That's the first step is in considering their lives.
>
>It's the only step *required* in the LoL.

That's a lie.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing
cracker, stupidly blabbered:

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:32:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing cracker, stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>>On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:12:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing cracker, stupidly blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>>On 7 Feb 2006 19:29:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing cracker, stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
>>>>>>for food.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to try to show that it would be the same thing somehow,
>>>>>then you need to provide some details
>>>>
>>>>No details are necessary
>>>
>>> You always have to quit when it gets down to details. ALWAYS!
>>
>>It's the same reasoning, there is no need for details.
>
>
> Not to you, because quality of life is meaningless to you.

Not to *anyone*, ****wit. Animals' "getting to
experience life" has no moral meaning to any thinking
person.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing
cracker, stupidly blabbered:

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:31:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing cracker, stupidly blabbered:
>
>
>>>Since you/"aras" don't think their lives should EVER
>>>be given positive consideration, it would be stupid to even try to
>>>discuss when they do and when they don't with people who feel that
>>>they *never* do. LOL....just the concept of trying is pretty amusing...
>>
>>You leave your argument devoid of meaningful details
>
>
> The fact that you can't distinguish between when animals' lives may
> or may not be of positive value to the animals

Their lives *never* are "of positive value" to them,
****wit.


>>then blame everyone
>>else.. I see.
>
>
> It's your ****ing choice, not mine. Don't start trying to blame me
> because animals' lives have no significance to you

Animals' lives have no significance to the animals
themselves, ****wit, you stupid ****ing rock.


>>>>>As yet none
>>>>>of you "aras", including your hero, have given any good reason to
>>>>>disregard
>>>>>the lives of animals when they have positive value, or are "fairly
>>>>>happy".
>>>>
>>>>"Regarding" their lives. . . would demonstrate the epitomy of
>>>>disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.
>>
>>What's with the "..." in the middle of my quote,
>
>
> I just removed

You just lied.


>>you dishonest piece of shit?
>
>
> Oh okay

Yes: okay, you're a dishonest piece of shit.



>>Here's what I actually said,
>>
>>"Regarding" their lives does not have to include the self-justification, "at
>>least they got to experience life", that would demonstrate the epitomy of
>>disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.
>>
>>Why did you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said ****wit? Truth
>>hurt?
>
>
> The fact that

The fact that you lied. That's the relevant fact in this.


>>You ****ing loser.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing
cracker, stupidly blabbered:

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:47:57 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing cracker, stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>>On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:10:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>
>>>>as you have
>>>>demonstrated. "Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would
>>>>have
>>>>if 'you/ARAs' get your way."
>>>
>>> I don't believe I ever wrote that. I believe you're just lying AGAIN.
>>
>>What do you disagree with in that quote?
>
>
> That I wrote it.

It correctly expresses your belief. It is very close
to something you actually wrote.




>>>>>You can't contribute to better lives for any of them.
>>>>
>>>>What's your point, that nobody should care?
>>>
>>> My point is that it's the life they get or no life for all of them, as
>>>I've been saying over and over, so that's how people need to think
>>>about it because that's the way it IS.
>>
>>How is that any different that the quote above to which you violenlt
>>objected?
>
>
> It doesn't specify whether the lives are good or bad.

YOU don't care if their lives are good or bad, ****wit
- that's just a dodge. ALL you care about is that they
exist, ****WIT.


>>>>I am not going to lose sleep worrying
>>>>that I can't help a battery hen in some barn, all I can do as a consumer
>>>>interested in AW is to stop demanding eggs produced that way.
>>>>
>>>>I am glad the free-range hens have better lives than battery hens, but
>>>>that's not a motivation for me to consume more eggs, that's absurd, it's a
>>>>motivation to avoid the bad producers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And of course the most likely reason you deny
>>>>>facts is because they oppose "ar". There is no other reason for you
>>>>>to do so.
>>>>
>>>>I oppose "ar" but I could withhold support for battery egg production
>>>>whether I did or not.
>>
>>whoooossshhhhh!
>
>
> It was a lie. You support "ar".

You are lying. He doesn't.



>>>>>>So why can't you understand the reasoning of ARAs who judge ALL
>>>>>>livestock
>>>>>>lives to be that unacceptable, therefore say "No life for all livestock
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>GOOD thing"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do understand it.

You claim they haven't explained it, ****wit, so you
can't also claim to understand it. Another ****witted
contradiction by ****wit.

>>>>
>>>>It's exactly the same logic you use for withdrawing support for battery
>>>>hens, you believe their lives are not worth living.
>>
>>
>>whooossshhhh!
>
>
> You're

Right. He is right: it zoomed right over your little
peanut head.



>>>>It *should* only apply when their lives are happy, but you constantly
>>>>refer
>>>>to the billions of animals raised for food without such a distinction.
>>>
>>> That's the first step is in considering their lives.

Their coming into existence deserves no moral
consideration.


>>
>>It's the only step *required* in the LoL.
>
>
> That's a lie.

No.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:31:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@. pointed out:
>
>>> Since you/"aras" don't think their lives should EVER
>>> be given positive consideration, it would be stupid to even try to
>>> discuss when they do and when they don't with people who feel that
>>> they *never* do. LOL....just the concept of trying is pretty amusing...
>>
>>You leave your argument devoid of meaningful details
>
> The fact that you can't distinguish between when animals' lives may
> or may not be of positive value to the animals, is meaningless to you
> but of the utmost significance to me, you poor dumb ass.

Just saying that is meaningless unless you provide details.

> It is not possible for you/"aras" to distinguish between when farm
> animals lives are of positive or negative value to the animals,
> BECAUSE you/"they" believe that NONE of them are or could be of
> posiive value to the animals.

None of their lives are a justification for raising them for food, that's
The Logic of the Larder and it's inadmissable.

>>then blame everyone
>>else.. I see.
>
> It's your ****ing choice, not mine. Don't start trying to blame me
> because animals' lives have no significance to you, much less can
> you consider what significance they have to the animals. That is
> entirely YOUR fault, not mine.

None of their lives are a justification for raising them for food, that's
The Logic of the Larder and it's inadmissable.

>>>>> As yet none
>>>>> of you "aras", including your hero, have given any good reason to
>>>>> disregard
>>>>> the lives of animals when they have positive value, or are "fairly
>>>>> happy".
>>>>
>>>>"Regarding" their lives. . . would demonstrate the epitomy of
>>>>disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.
>>
>>What's with the "..." in the middle of my quote,
>
> I just removed your obsessive concern with your imaginary browny
> points because I'm sick as hell of you crying about them all the time.

Liar, you removed it because you're a dishonest loser. The brownie points
you're referring to are the ones implicit in The Logic of the Larder.

>>you dishonest piece of shit?
>
> Oh okay you baby, you can have one browny point, not that you
> earned it, but just "take" it or whatever you do with it and from now
> on shut the **** up about it.

I don't claim ANY brownie points, you do. I KNOW that it is inadmissable
morally to "consider what the animals get out of it", which is claiming
brownie points.

>>Here's what I actually said,
>>
>>"Regarding" their lives does not have to include the self-justification,
>>"at
>>least they got to experience life", that would demonstrate the epitomy of
>>disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives.
>>
>>Why did you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said ****wit? Truth
>>hurt?
>
> The fact that you ONLY care about your browny points doesn't hurt
> Doutche, it disgusts, so I removed it. And very VERY amusingly the ONLY
> thing you care about again is getting them put back. SO funny!!!

"at least they got to experience life" is YOUR argument ****wit, nobody
else's, and that's what you snipped. THAT is a pathetic attempt at
self-justfication known as The Logic of the Larder. Why are you ashamed of
it now?

>>You ****ing loser.
>
> LOL! ALL you can think about is YOUR browny points. You HILARIOUSLY
> don't even have a clue how very much your stupid "browny points" show
> disrespect for them as indivduals and for their lives! LOL!!!
>
> One browny point and that's all you get...lol...and you didn't get it
> because you earned it, you only get it because you keep crying about
> it. So shut the **** up about it. Oh, then you don't have anything else
> left to cry about.

I'll shut up about it as soon as you stop claiming them ****wit. As soon as
you stop saying "at least they got to experience life", I will no longer
need to point out to you that it's an inadmissable and unecessary
self-justifying argument called The Logic of the Larder, which is NOT
related to Animal Welfare.

Stop claiming brownie points for "supporting animal lives" then "pointing
out" (foolishly) that vegans don't get those brownie points.

Stop now ****wit. Its time.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:32:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:12:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On 7 Feb 2006 19:29:50 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6 Feb 2006 09:52:12 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>There is no reason the humans need to know that they are being raised
>>>>>>for food.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to try to show that it would be the same thing somehow,
>>>>> then you need to provide some details
>>>>
>>>>No details are necessary
>>>
>>> You always have to quit when it gets down to details. ALWAYS!
>>
>>It's the same reasoning, there is no need for details.
>
> Not to you, because quality of life is meaningless to you.

It's wrong to raise humans for food, reqardless of the quality of their
lives. The Logic of the Larder has damaged your brain.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:47:57 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:10:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>>>as you have
>>>>demonstrated. "Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would
>>>>have
>>>>if 'you/ARAs' get your way."
>>>
>>> I don't believe I ever wrote that. I believe you're just lying AGAIN.
>>
>>What do you disagree with in that quote?
>
> That I wrote it.

Other than the fact that it's not a verbatim quote, what in the content do
you disagree with? The answer is NOTHING.

"Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would have if 'you/ARAs'
get your way." is what you believe, it's a stripped-down immoral version of
The Logic of the Larder, your religion.


>>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>>> you'll probably never be able to understand why it's significant
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are no more worthy of comparison than real pigs and "Logic of the
>>>>>>>>> Larder"
>>>>>>>>> imaginary talking "ar" pigs who know they are raised by humans,
>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> they will be killed, know they will be made into sausages, and
>>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are kept in filthy conditions, etc....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Of course they're comparable, they are alternative animals,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No they are NOT! NO pigs suffer from the knowledge that they will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> killed, much as you "ar" fantasisers want everyone to believe that
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I meant that free range and battery hens are comparable animals. It's
>>>>>>good
>>>>>>to choose one over the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you can do is deliberately promote life for one or the other,
>>>>> or
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>>That's what AW means.
>>>>
>>>>> You can't contribute to better lives for any of them.
>>>>
>>>>What's your point, that nobody should care?
>>>
>>> My point is that it's the life they get or no life for all of them,
>>> as
>>> I've been saying over and over, so that's how people need to think
>>> about it because that's the way it IS.
>>
>>How is that any different that the quote above to which you violenlt
>>objected?
>
> It doesn't specify whether the lives are good or bad. You wouldn't
> understand such details though.

"My point is that it's the life they get or no life for all of them" does
NOT specify if their lives are good or bad. In fact it specifically referes
to "all of them". NOWHERE in your position do make a genuine reference to
using animal products being contingent on them having decent lives. You make
vague non-sequitor assertions that "some of them" do, but it's never tied
logically into your position, it's never given the status of a necessary
component, as Salt and Singer both envisage. You don't even use the the
entire Logic of the Larder when you say "My point is that it's the life they
get or no life for all of them" you simply take the part that serves your
purpose and shitcan the part about them living long happy lives.

It's all inadmissable bullshit ****wit. The *real* Logic of the Larder is a
theoretical utilitarian animal rights philosophy. You have butchered and
prostituted it for your own benefit.

[..]
>>
>>>>I am not going to lose sleep worrying
>>>>that I can't help a battery hen in some barn, all I can do as a consumer
>>>>interested in AW is to stop demanding eggs produced that way.
>>>>
>>>>I am glad the free-range hens have better lives than battery hens, but
>>>>that's not a motivation for me to consume more eggs, that's absurd, it's
>>>>a
>>>>motivation to avoid the bad producers.
>>>>
>>>>> And of course the most likely reason you deny
>>>>> facts is because they oppose "ar". There is no other reason for you
>>>>> to do so.
>>>>
>>>>I oppose "ar" but I could withhold support for battery egg production
>>>>whether I did or not.
>>
>>whoooossshhhhh!
>
> It was a lie. You support "ar".

In what way do I support ar, because I disagree with your prostitution of
the Logic of the Larder? In any case I could withdraw support for battery
hens regardless of being an ARA or not, because of AW considerations EVEN
THOUGH "it's the life they get or no life for all of them". We're BOTH
supporting "no life" for battery hens ****wit.


>>>>>>>>each who are
>>>>>>>>raised because of my consumption. By supporting the better option I
>>>>>>>>support
>>>>>>>>the animal that has a better life instead of the one who doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>better life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For completely different animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You might as well be comparing
>>>>>>>>> battery hens with kangaroos.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, if I consumed kangaroos, but I don't, in Australia they do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The alternative still remains life or no
>>>>>>>>> life for battery hens
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No life for battery hens is a GOOD thing, don't you agree?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So why can't you understand the reasoning of ARAs who judge ALL
>>>>>>livestock
>>>>>>lives to be that unacceptable, therefore say "No life for all
>>>>>>livestock
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>GOOD thing"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do understand it.
>>>>
>>>>It's exactly the same logic you use for withdrawing support for battery
>>>>hens, you believe their lives are not worth living.
>>
>>
>>whooossshhhh!
>
> You're a retard. I told you I understood to begin with, so your stupid
> explanation was not worth your time, much less mine to reply to it. So
> now I'm pointing out that you're acting even more stupid. Idiot.

You never replied. What's the difference between you withdrawing support for
battery hens and vegans withdrawing support for all livestock based on not
believing their lives are worth living? No difference.


>>>>> I also understand reasons why they're wrong, that
>>>>> you/"they" do not.
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean by "they're wrong"? They are making a value judgment
>>>>about
>>>>the lives of animals, just as you do. How can that be wrong?
>>>
>>> Because it's based on your/"their" belief that all of their lives are
>>> so horrible that none of them are worth living. You believe none of
>>> them are of positive value to the animals.
>>
>>ARAs believe it, how is that wrong?
>
> You pretend that you used to understand it:

> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Message-ID: >
>
> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> has positive or negative value to the animal.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> so pretend that you still can and see if you can explain it. If you can't,
> then you're not capable of understanding how they're wrong, or your
> own paste, so there's probably no chance you'll ever be able to understand
> "again". How could you possibly learn to understand something that you
> hilariously insist you understood in the past, but can't understand now?

Answer the question ****wit. Why are ARAs wrong when they make the judgment
that livestock lives are not worth living? Because you disagree with them?

>>>>>>> But I also feel that life of positive value is a good thing,
>>>>>>> which you do not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That depends on your definition of a good life, and it still doesn't
>>>>>>support
>>>>>>the Logic of the Larder.
>>>>>
>>>>> The LoL only applys "when their life is a fairly happy one",
>>>>> so yes
>>>>> it most certainly does apply.
>>>>
>>>>It *should* only apply when their lives are happy, but you constantly
>>>>refer
>>>>to the billions of animals raised for food without such a distinction.
>>>
>>> That's the first step is in considering their lives.
>>
>>It's the only step *required* in the LoL.
>
> That's a lie.

In the classic Logic of the Larder as expressed by Singer, in order to be
causing a utilitarian "net good" by raising animals for food one had to
*ensure* that those animals lived long, happy lives. You don't do that
****wit, AT ALL, you simply appropriated the idea that animals lives *can*
represent a utilitarian "good" then hastily concluded that consuming animal
products is therefore good. You have stripped the Logic of the Larder of the
part that gave it appeal to Singer. In order to follow the traditional LoL
you must make great efforts to ensure that those animals are living long
happy lives, simply waving your hand and asserting that 'some of them
somewhere live decent lives' doesn't cut it.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:37:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>> I just removed your obsessive concern with your imaginary browny
>> points because I'm sick as hell of you crying about them all the time.
>
>Liar, you removed it because you're a dishonest loser. The brownie points
>you're referring to are the ones implicit in The Logic of the Larder.

You're only worried about the ones you're afraid of losing for The Logic
of the Vegan.

>>>you dishonest piece of shit?
>>
>> Oh okay you baby, you can have one browny point, not that you
>> earned it, but just "take" it or whatever you do with it and from now
>> on shut the **** up about it.
>
>I don't claim ANY brownie points,

You are terrified that people might consider some option(s) to be
ethically equivalent or superior to "ar" elimination, which would take
brownie points away from The Logic of the Vegan.

>you do. I KNOW that it is inadmissable
>morally to "consider what the animals get out of it"

No, we sure don't know anything as stupid or inconsiderate as that.
It's an aspect of the situation that MUST be considered if we're
considering whether or not it's cruel to animals to raise them for food.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:09:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:47:57 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news >>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:10:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>as you have
>>>>>demonstrated. "Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would
>>>>>have
>>>>>if 'you/ARAs' get your way."
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe I ever wrote that. I believe you're just lying AGAIN.
>>>
>>>What do you disagree with in that quote?
>>
>> That I wrote it.
>
>Other than the fact that it's not a verbatim quote,

It's just another of your lies.

>what in the content do
>you disagree with? The answer is NOTHING.

That's another lie.

>"Whatever life they do get is superior to what they would have if 'you/ARAs'
>get your way." is what you believe,

That's another lie. You're getting as good as your hero Goo.
And all to prove what? You're ethical "superiority"? If you can
get people to believe your lies, does that make you ethically
superior somehow? Does it get you even more browny points?

>it's a stripped-down immoral version

Since it's a lie it certainly is immoral. I have told you that quality of
life is what determines whether their lives have positive or negative
value, and you either can not understand or lie and say you don't.

[...]
>"My point is that it's the life they get or no life for all of them" does
>NOT specify if their lives are good or bad. In fact it specifically referes
>to "all of them". NOWHERE in your position do make a genuine reference to
>using animal products being contingent on them having decent lives. You make
>vague non-sequitor assertions that "some of them" do,

That's farther than you can take it. As I've pointed out, it's of no
use to point out that some lives are of positive value and some are
not, to people like you/"aras who stupidly believe that none of them are.

[...]
>
>Answer the question ****wit. Why are ARAs wrong when they make the judgment
>that livestock lives are not worth living?

Because some are of positive value, depending on quality of life.
You have proven yourself too stupid to understand that.

If we are talking about the whole agrifarm livestock world of animals
it does not matter if we talk about quality of life
or about getting to live at all.

Because,
1) the quality of life there sucks in general in that world
2) the raising of those animals excludes ecosystems that support(ed)
other life forms who lose the 'getting to live' option if livestock is
raised, both in the envrinoment where the livestock is and in all those
environments where complex ecosystems are made simple for farmland to
grow proteins to feed the livestock.

If livestock are phases out different animals will flourish, and in the
environments that fit them and in ways that do not further damage other
ecosystems.

Livestock raising and the farming that supports it causes tremendous
damage to water supplies and this in turn damages kills and limits the
life of other plant and animals organisms.

sequitur