406093d9   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.global-warming   
      
   On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:26:56 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Mar 31, 3:02 pm, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>  wrote in messagenews:m6a7r5pcu1gtnd7etuc88k6g81gl7bb7s5@4ax.com...   
   >> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> wrote in messagenews:vvj4r5t9k0poigoj1go9jp52htcofosr92@4ax.com...   
   >> >>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >>>> wrote   
   >>   
   >> >>>>>    My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people   
   >> >>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat   
   >> >>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a   
   >> >>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass   
   >> >>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)   
   >> >>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he   
   >> >>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt   
   >> >>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.   
   >>   
   >> >>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because   
   >> >>>>"it"   
   >> >>>>is   
   >> >>>>self-serving bullshit.   
   >>   
   >> >>>    It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel   
   >> >>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.   
   >>   
   >> >>That doesn't mean anything.   
   >>   
   >> >    Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals   
   >> > into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does   
   >> > consider them.   
   >>   
   >> Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a   
   >> person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.   
   >>   
   >> What a complete joke you are.   
   >   
   >We don't just eat them. We keep them, feed them, fatten them up,   
      
       Misnomer addicts can't afford to consider the animals lives.   
   In fact they openly refuse to:   
      
   "It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives   
   (existence) of livestock, or of any other creature" - "Dutch"   
      
   "It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives   
   of other creatures" - "Dutch"   
      
   "Any suggestion that there is some moral significance   
   to whether or not they [future humans] will or will not exist is   
   pure nonsense." - "Dutch"   
      
   "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"   
      
   "I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - "Dutch"   
      
   "What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this   
   "consideration" that I am failing to give?" - "Dutch"   
      
   >slaughter them, butcher them, cook them, then we eat them.   
      
       Misnomer addicts are ONLY willing to consider their deaths   
   and not their lives...unless their lives of so full of suffering   
   that they have negative value for the animal that is. They like   
   to think about the suffering and lives of negative value, while   
   refusing to even acknowledge those of positive value. Imagine   
   hating livestock animals so badly that you refuse to consider the   
   fact that many of them have lives of positive value...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)