XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, sci.econ   
      
   On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:29:38 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote in message news:98akk5lmv2v0295n6meeo1io1qkkc0k373@4ax.com...   
   >> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:13:15 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> wrote in message news:cb9ck5d2v274pti7b94pu7nr6f5dfvbbab@4ax.com...   
   >>>   
   >>>>    I'm not "conceding" a damn thing you idiot. Animals are   
   >>>> killed, I'm aware of it, I've killed and butchered them myself,   
   >>>> and unlike you I'm not dishonestly trying to pretend it isn't a   
   >>>> significant part of the situation.   
   >>>   
   >>>We're omnivorous animals, we kill and eat other animals. What "situation"?   
   >>   
   >>    The situation that animals are raised for food.   
   >   
   >The question and the answer are both contained in that short sentence.   
   >   
   >What do we do? We raise animals and kill them.   
   >Why do we do it? For food.   
   >   
   >That's it, that's entire whole moral calculation regarding their lives,   
      
       Not to people who are not as purely selfish as those who have   
   faith in the misnomer.   
      
   >anything more is sophism.   
      
       That's a blatant lie.   
      
   >>>>>> It also should continue to be taken into   
   >>>>>> consideration regardless of any human murders, slaverys, child   
   >>>>>> abuses, etc. that you use trying to argue against consideration.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>"Consideration of life" NEVER enters into the discussion when we talk   
   >>>>>about   
   >>>>>whether or not we are justified in harming another being. That being's   
   >>>>>life,   
   >>>>>no matter how much you "consider" (think about) it, has nothing to do   
   >>>>>with   
   >>>>>the question.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    The lives of wolves should be taken into consideration as   
   >>>> well as the lives and deaths they will have influence on within   
   >>>> the populations of their prey, when considering whether or not to   
   >>>> re-introduce them to specific areas. Even though you want to   
   >>>> pretend such things are never considered, I believe they are.   
   >>>> LOL!!! Actually it's amusing to think about them NOT being taken   
   >>>> into consideration, and it could only be a misnomer hugger like   
   >>>> yourself to suggest that they are not.   
   >>>   
   >>>None of that has anything to do with The Logic of the Larder.   
   >>   
   >>    It all has to do with consideration of THE ANIMALS,   
   >   
   >Stop equivocating. Thinking the animals' lives provide an excuse to raise   
   >them is not "consideration".   
      
       That's a blatant lie.   
      
   >> regardless of how you misnomer addicts like to refer to it.   
   >> LOL...it is amusing that you want to refer to your elimination   
   >> objective as "rights", and consideration for other creatures'   
   >> lives as the LoL.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>The question is, where did you get the idea that you needed an excuse?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    I don't need an excuse to consider their lives. I haven't   
   >>>>>> eaten any lamb in probably ten years for example, so billions of   
   >>>>>> sheep have experienced life since the last time I "contributed"   
   >>>>>> to sheep farming. Actually I never have, since I've never bought   
   >>>>>> any sheep meat in my life. Even so, I can still appreciate the   
   >>>>>> fact that sheep experience life because humans raise them for   
   >>>>>> food. I can, but you people can not.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Good for you, but it doesn't do anything.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    It gives me a better interpretation of the big picture than I   
   >>>> would get if I couldn't, like you can't.   
   >>>   
   >>>What does that "better interpretation of the big picture" that you claim   
   >>>to   
   >>>have accomplish?   
   >>   
   >>    One thing it does is allows me to have some appreciation for   
   >> livestock animals' positions, while misnomer addicts are capable   
   >> of none.   
   >   
   >And what does this "appreciation" accomplish?   
      
       A more realistic interpretation than misnomer addicts, which   
   apparently means nothing to you/them. Even from deep within Camp   
   Elimination anyone with a functioning brain should be able to   
   recognise the fact that filtering out THE ANIMALS THEMSELVES will   
   NECESSARILY created an unrealistic interpretation of human   
   influence on animals.   
      
   >>>>>It is an empty, circular thought   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    In contrast to that blatant lie it's a very significant   
   >>>> aspect of the situation for billions of animals both wild and   
   >>>> domestic.   
   >>>   
   >>>For what specific purpose? And giving you "a better interpretation of the   
   >>>big picture" is not a useful purpose.   
   >>   
   >>    Yes it is. Do you really want me to believe you're too stupid   
   >> to understand why? You may be, but ONLY if you're a misnomer   
   >> hugger as I have suspected and you have been pathetically denying   
   >> for years.   
   >   
   >What is the purpose?   
      
       To be in a position to try to evaluate which things are cruel   
   to animals and which are not, and WHY! You people think it's all   
   wrong so you can't make a distinction, but those of us who can   
   appreciate the animals themselves can also go on to evaluate   
   which of them we believe have lives of positive value, and which   
   we believe do not.   
      
   >You have no answer   
      
       LOL! That's a blatant lie.   
      
   >because there is no purpose to it.   
      
       The purity of your selfishness prevents you from even   
   recognising much less being able to appreciate the purpose, as   
   I've been pointing out to you for years. You CAN NOT have any   
   appreciation for livestock because it works against the misnomer   
   you've become addicted to.   
      
   >>>>>you are using to make yourself feel better about   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel   
   >>>> TO THE ANIMALS for human to raise them for food.   
   >>>   
   >>>Why is it necessary? You keep repeating these phrases and never explain   
   >>>why   
   >>>they apply.   
   >>   
   >>     In order to appreciate it from the animals' positions you   
   >> must consider the positions they're in.   
   >   
   >I know the position they're in.   
      
       You don't even care, much less care enough to find out.   
      
   >> THAT is what determines   
   >> whether or not something is cruel to the animals themselves. I've   
   >> been pointing out for years that the purity of your selfishness   
   >> won't allow you to actually evaluate whether or not things are   
   >> cruel TO THEM. That's a fact, not a hollow insult as you may   
   >> percieve it as being. You are and always have been only able to   
   >> consider YOUR OWN position, and can't even begin to attempt   
   >> making a separation and try considering things from a different   
   >> perspective. You probably honestly can't even comprehend what I'm   
   >> telling you about, it's so pure...   
   >   
   >As always, you're talking nonsense.   
      
       It is and always has been the purity with all of you. That's   
   why you feel so comfortable with lying and your other   
   dishonesties. It's also why you are comfortable--though you can   
   NEVER explain how or why--with trying to disagree with yourself   
   and completely changing your position. You came in claiming to be   
   a misnomer hugging veg*n, but now amusingly and pathetically you   
   try pretending to be a meat eater in favor of decent AW. I don't   
   know if anyone believes you have changed that much, but I know I   
   certainly don't. You are still a misnomer hugging veg*n, and are   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)