XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
      
   On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:44 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   > wrote in message news:3ktu96dfovmkb0399ist5j14lmksmogkvn@4ax.com...   
   >> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:43 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, dh@. pointed out:   
   >>>   
   >>>>You obviously never got over it:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"we must have at least the same right as every animal does,   
   >>>>which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves   
   >>>>and thrive." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"What's important is the medium/long term implications,   
   >>>>that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you   
   >>>>for years." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"Rights for animals exist because human rights   
   >>>>exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for   
   >>>>animals would not exist." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted   
   >>>>like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". - "Dutch"   
   >> . . .   
   >>>Elimination makes AW irrelevant,   
   >>>moot, it's not the alternative.   
   >>   
   >>    It's one of them. LOL...why do you want people to believe   
   >> that it's not?   
   >>   
   >>>You're creating a false dichotomy,   
   >>   
   >>    You're trying to create the false impression that   
   >> contributing to elimination is not the opposite of contributing   
   >> to decent AW, which it most cetainly is.   
   >   
   >No, it is not.   
      
       Oh, if that's the case you should explain what you should   
   have explained a decade ago. Explain how not raising any   
   livestock is the same as providing billions of livestock with   
   lives of positive value. Go:   
      
   (correct prediction: you necessarily can't even make an attempt   
   for the obvious reason that you are blatantly lying again)   
      
   >>>one of a long list of fallacies your   
   >>>whole position rests on.   
   >>   
   >>    My "position" is to point out the fact that millions of   
   >> animals experience lives of positive value because they're raised   
   >> for food, and billions more can in the future.   
   >   
   >And in the process hundreds of billions experience lives of no value or   
   >worse.   
      
       Like what?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)