XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:04:45 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:28:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:00:07 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:05:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:19:23 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:05:38 -0500, dh@. pointed out:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>    The stock answers show that I've addressed and overcome you   
   >>>>>>people's complaints years ago. Unlike yourself I CAN provide the   
   >>>>>>examples. They were old shit to me within the first few months,   
   >>>>>>obviously since I made them stock answers. You people still can't   
   >>>>>>comprehend much less appreciate them, and almost certainly never   
   >>>>>>will in your entire lifetime.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>They show that you stopped thinking years ago   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    They show that I learned to appreciate and think about   
   >>>>aspects of the situation that misnomer addicts will never be able   
   >>>>to appreciate as long as they're addicted to the misnomer.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>and have chosen to just keep   
   >>>>>regurgitating the same crap.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    The things I point out have been significant aspects of human   
   >>>>influence on animals for thousands of years. Did you think they   
   >>>>may have changed within the past decade for some reason? Could   
   >>>>you be even THAT clueless? Maybe you could be, since you're   
   >>>>bitching at me for continuing to point out things that will   
   >>>>always remain true.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Most of the time it doesn't even apply.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Consideration for other beings' lives ALWAYS applies to   
   >>>>trying to determine whether or not life has positive value  TO   
   >>>>THEM.   
   >>>   
   >>>I realize that sounds groovy to you but it has no meaning. The terms you use   
   >>>within it are vague and undefined, and even if you defined them it would not   
   >>>mean anything.   
   >>   
   >>    In total contrast to that, you used to claim that you   
   >>understood and could even to some extent appreciate some of the   
   >>meaning:   
   >>   
   >>"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life   
   >>has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"   
   >>   
   >>"I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor   
   >>when assessing the morality related to food animals." - "Dutch"   
   >>   
   >>"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock   
   >>animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"   
   >>   
   >>"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL   
   >>exist under present rules" - "Dutch"   
   >>   
   >>"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are   
   >>as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch   
   >>   
   >>    How do you think you disagree with yourself THIS time, do you   
   >>have any idea? When you can't explain how you think you do, are   
   >>we to believe that you have again UNlearned something that you at   
   >>one time used to be able to comprehend? If so, is it the result   
   >>of having had an extremely high fever, or a bad head injury, or   
   >>maybe a tumor? Have you had any of those happen, or been in a   
   >>coma, causing you to unlearn things you used to understand?   
   >   
   >In contrast to that you   
      
       LOL! No you poor fool. I'll try to make it clearer:   
      
   It appears that at one time you understood things you appear to   
   have unlearned, like many livestock having lives of positive   
   value. What caused you to unlearn the value of that aspect of   
   raising livestock, which in the past you appeared able to   
   understand?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)