XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.global-warming   
      
   On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote in message news:2eqlv555ev88bpa5l60gr35lq2k2d21dhs@4ax.com...   
   >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> asked an eliminationist:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Why would people try to   
   >>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care   
   >>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?   
   >>>   
   >>>So that animals don't suffer?   
   >>>   
   >>>> They would not.   
   >>>   
   >>>Why not?   
   >>   
   >>    LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the   
   >> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists   
   >> insist that no one should.   
   >   
   >Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why   
   >is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?   
      
       If they don't care as you insist they should not, then they   
   would not care. Do you want people to believe you are so stupid   
   you can't comprehend that not caring means not caring? LOL!!! You   
   eliminationists do that, that much is for sure. You also pretend   
   to be too stupid to understand that having consideration for   
   animals' lives means having consideration for their lives, and   
   Rupert claims to be too stupid to comprehend what it means to   
   have a life of positive value. You probably want people to think   
   you're too stupid to understand it too, though in the past you   
   have claimed to have had some clue.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)