XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
      
   On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:51:45 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:34:21 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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   
   >   
   >That's a lie, it's right there.   
   >   
   >"Elimination makes AW irrelevant, moot, it's not the alternative."   
      
       It is one alternative and of course it IS the opposite of   
   providing them with decent lives, so as always we see that it's   
   you who are the liar, lying in an attempt to encourage acceptance   
   of the misnomer. That's pretty much all I've ever known you to   
   do, now that you mention it.   
      
   >>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.   
   >   
   >Better treatment costs a lot of money, people want cheap.   
      
       I'm convinced it can be worked out for all cases, just as it   
   has been worked out for many if not most of them already.   
      
   >For some it is all   
   >they can afford.   
   >   
   >>>"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)   
   >   
   >I already did, it eliminates ALL the animal suffering without harming a   
   >single animal. There is no direct moral downside to the elimination of   
   >livestock as a goal, it would just be very inconvenient.   
   >   
   >Your solution (and mine) in practical terms perpetuates a lot of animal   
   >suffering.   
      
       I support eliminating the suffering and providing decent   
   lives of positive value, and consider that to be superior to   
   complete elimination even after all these years of your supposed   
   arguments trying to change my mind about it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)