XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:08 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:04:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:10:22 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> wrote   
   >>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:02:42 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> wrote   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>    I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault   
   >>>>>> of misnomer huggers   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>YOU fail to support lives of positive value for livestock,   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    I do whenever I feel like it, just like everybody else.   
   >>>   
   >>>Everybody else is not attacking other people for "not supporting lives of   
   >>>positive value", you are,   
   >>   
   >>    I'm pointing out that they don't, and it offends you that I   
   >>point it out. Now that you mention it I don't recall ever   
   >>attacking anyone for it, but in contrast to that it seems you get   
   >>offended by the fact every time I point it out. LOL...you get   
   >>offended every time I point out something they/you should be   
   >>PROUD of, not ashamed to the point that you take it as an   
   >>"attack". Something you should consider to be in your   
   >>favor--pointing out your/"their" objective--you consider to be a   
   >>personal "attack".   
   >   
   >You're attacking them   
      
       Provide some examples of what you claim to be attacks.   
      
   >>That is likely to be because the objective   
   >>isn't necessarily the most ethically supreme choice, and you're   
   >>opposed to considering the lives of the animals we're discussing   
   >>BECAUSE doing so suggests that decent AW might be ethically   
   >>equivalent or superior TO THE ELIMINATION OBJECTIVE. DUH!!!!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)