XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
      
   On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:25:17 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:16:26 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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)   
   >   
   >I explained right above   
      
       That's a lie so we see that you're sticking with your regular   
   pattern: First you lie, then you dishonestly try to make it   
   appear true by telling other lies. On the plus side for me, you   
   did prove my prediction correct.   
      
   >>>>>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?   
   >   
   >Lives dominated by extreme confinement, deprivation, thwarting of natural   
   >instincts, lack of light, physical suffering.   
      
       Providing better treatment could provide lives of positive   
   value instead of negative, which of course is the last thing   
   eliminationists would like to see happen.   
      
   >"Elimination" solves all those issues   
      
       Try explaining why people should favor that over contributing   
   to lives of positive value. Go:   
      
   (correct prediction again: you can't even attempt to explain)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)