XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.global-warming   
      
   On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:11:59 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:41:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:41:52 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> wrote in message news:catnv5tcci6qpf43kb36qlfifd2arm28n3@4ax.com...   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>Answer the question, why is not enough to care about animal suffering? What   
   >>>are you contributing TO THE ANIMALS by "considering their lives" beyond what   
   >>>is gained by caring about their suffering?   
   >>>   
   >>>I'll tell you, nothing meaningful.   
   >>   
   >>    Nothing meaningful to YOU who want to see them eliminated.   
   >>The only thing you care about is the fact that it disturbs you   
   >>for humans to eat meat. Since you want that to end regardless of   
   >>the influence it has on ANY animals, you of course refuse to   
   >>consider anything positive for those animals you want to see   
   >>eliminated. One of the ways I know you're opposed to AW is the   
   >>fact that you are OPPOSED to considering anything positive about   
   >>the lives of livestock. LOL...no one in favor of AW would be   
   >>opposed to that.   
   >   
   >Answer the question, what does "considering their lives" do for them   
      
       For one thing it gets people like myself to do things like   
   buy cage free eggs. For another it encourages people like myself   
   to put some insects out of the house instead of killing all of   
   them regardless. It also encourages me to allow spiders to live   
   for extra periods of weeks and months before I finally kill them.   
   I have even released some rodents like mice and rats that I've   
   caught in my own home--knowing it's always best to just kill   
   them--because I considered their lives. In those cases for at   
   least a period of time is was good for them. Also, when raising   
   chickens it encouraged me to once in a while let a hen set and   
   hatch off some chicks just so the chicks could experience life,   
   even though I didn't want any chickens raised out of their   
   particular mother.   
      
   >that caring about their suffering doesn't do?   
      
       LOL! The ONLY thing obsessing over their suffering while   
   denying their pleasures does, is to support elimination. Your   
   clueless ignorance in that area is one of the things that lets me   
   know you're in favor of the misnomer over decent AW.   
      
   >You'll whiff off again of course because the answer is NOTHING, and you   
   >won't admit that your argument means NOTHING..   
      
       It's meaningful to commercial laying hens enjoying being   
   raised in conditions in which they are not restricted to battery   
   cages, which those of us who actually do buy cage free eggs   
   appreciate enough to spend the extra money to support. Your   
   clueless ignorance in that area is another one of the things that   
   lets me know you're in favor of the misnomer over decent AW...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)