XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.global-warming   
      
   On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:49:52 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote in message news:q8f6s5tc3ahlcf2otibe3ea8353o60tnp0@4ax.com...   
   >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:08:13 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>"Jack"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:592a12bc-914a-4393-9cb7-3f4f81d5ef51@a9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John Stafford  wrote:   
   >>>> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well   
   >>>> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human   
   >>>> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why   
   >>>> don't we just add them to the food supply?   
   >>>   
   >>>Could you rephrase that.   
   >>>   
   >>>It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key   
   >>>point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to being   
   >>>raised for food.   
   >>   
   >>    As yet you still haven't explained what they "taught" you in   
   >> grade school that allows you to say whether they ever are or not.   
   >   
   >I have explained it to you more times than I can count, but as when I talk   
   >to my dog, I have learned that you are not capable of understanding the   
   >meaning of the words.   
      
       It's not that I don't understand what you tell me, it's that   
   I usually disbelieve you. But in this particular case so far you   
   haven't even provided anything to consider. Again I challenge you   
   to try explaining what you think you were taught in grade school   
   prevents life from ever being a benefit.   
      
   >>>That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder".   
   >>   
   >>    As far as we know it's only called that by misnomer addicts.   
   >   
   >That is an outright lie, most of the opponents of the LoL have been avowed   
   >antis.   
      
       I believe that's a lie. I have never considered Goo or you to   
   be opponents of elimination. Quite the opposite in fact I   
   consider you to be the most dedicated of its supporters.   
      
   >> Other people refer to it as taking the animals we're discussing   
   >> into consideration, or something similar to that.   
   >   
   >Morons like you say that.   
      
       Taking the animals we're discussing into consideration is   
   exactly that, whether you call it that or the LoL. This is of   
   course the same type of contemptible dishonesty you people use by   
   referring to the objective to eliminate domestic animals as   
   "animal rights". It's the same sort of dishonestly you use when   
   you tell children that going vegan saves livestock animals, and   
   it's the same sort of dishonesty you use when you pretend that   
   nothing on Earth has ever benefitted from living. It's a familiar   
   type of dishonesty very common to your movement.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)