XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Mon, 4 May 2009 18:07:18 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 04 May 2009 11:00:16 -0100, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:22 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> wrote   
   >>>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:59:31 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>    You are anti-considerate.   
   >>>   
   >>>There's no such word.   
   >>   
   >>    LOL. You yourself "are" the personification of that word.   
   >>All eliminationists are, now that you mention it.   
   >>   
   >>>I oppose The Logic of the Larder because   
   >>   
   >>    It works against the objective to eliminate domestic animals,   
   >>and that is the ONLY reason you TRY to oppose it. You don't   
   >>really oppose it, but just continue to repeat the same lie over   
   >>and over without being able to back it up.   
   >>   
   >>>its shabby sophism.   
   >>   
   >>    LOL! That's the lie I was referring to, which you can't   
   >>even ATTEMPT to try backing up.   
   . . .   
   >>>>    You have shown signs of having gotten a tiny little glimpse   
   >>>>through your thick selfish shielding, and I kept one or two in   
   >>>>my notes I believe...:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental   
   >>>>experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock   
   >>>>animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Those show that even though you're too selfish to give   
   >>>>them any significance in your supposed thoughts about   
   >>>>morality, you are aware of the value to the animals.   
   >>>>And this one:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,   
   >>>>I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>shows you're even aware of that aspect of the situation,   
   >>>>again clearly revealing how selfish you are.   
   >>   
   >>    How did you get stupid enough to unlearn it? It does   
   >>seem that you have a brain injury of some sort, so is that   
   >>what happened? Do you learn and unlearn things in   
   >>cycles? Do you sometimes unlearn how to read and write,   
   >>or to tie your shoes? Do you unlearn how to get back home   
   >>sometimes? Do you ever relearn things you have learned   
   >>and then unlearned? Is it possible that some day you might   
   >>relearn how to appreciate the significance of this very significant   
   >>aspect of the situation? Or having unlearned it, are you now   
   >>doomed to never being able to relearn it again?   
   >   
   >I oppose considering that   
      
       Duh Dutch. I've been asking you why anyone should   
   consider your anti-consideration to be ethically superior for   
   years and you have NEVER been able to give even one   
   decent reason. Did you somehow unlearn that too? Do   
   you unlearn it every time you snip the challenge? I must   
   have challenged you to try backing it up hundreds of   
   times by now. Have you unlearned that somehow, every   
   single time? Hey, here's an idea and a challenge: Try   
   explaining why anyone should or even could think that   
   your opposition to considering the animals is ethically   
   superior to considering them. Go:   
      
   >which warrants no consideration.   
      
       Considering the animals' lives is a necessary part of   
   evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM for humans   
   to raise them for food. What you need to do is explain   
   why you think it's ethically superior for people to REFUSE   
   to take that aspect into consideration. GO:   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)