XPost: alt.slack, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.satanism   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
      
   On Mon, 4 May 2009 17:58:58 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote in message news:15mtv49vpuh756bm6igmgajr0mq6b7bva8@4ax.com...   
   >> On Sun, 03 May 2009 23:39:14 -0400, just john    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Dutch wrote:   
   >>>>  wrote   
   >>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Blah blah   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which   
   >>>>>> is why   
   >>>>>> I only buy free range eggs and chickens.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those   
   >>>>> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever   
   >>>>> doing so.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Oh yeah?  I got a five dollar coupon that says you're full of it!   
   >>   
   >>    He is certainly full of bullshit claims...nothing to back them up,   
   >> but he is full of them. Here's one of his classics:   
   >>   
   >> "Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very   
   >> existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the   
   >> life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"   
   >   
   >Thanks for repeating the argument, you've never challenged it. You can't.   
      
       I can point out that IF you have any point at all, it ONLY applies   
   to animals that are used for sex and not at all to any who are not.   
   That being the case, it's obvious that you're being dishonest by   
   trying to compare child prostitution to animals who are never used   
   for sexual porposes so therefore can't be considered as ever having   
   suffered from the sexual abuse the children are.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)