XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.bu
dha.short.fat.guy
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:12:20 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message news:13o9a6h50moe04f2n72bom15pdnmk7v59t@4ax.com...
>> 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
>
>It is not,
Yes it is, so you should really stop telling that lie.
>that is a deliberately skewed, unbalanced juxtaposition. It's
>dishonest.
You should stop telling those lives too.
>Having a red car is not the alternative to having no car. The alternative to
>having no car is having a car.
>
>Having a red car is the alternative to having a green, blue, black or white
>car.
Elimination of livestock is an alternative to providing
decent lives for livestock.
> and of course it IS the opposite of
>> providing them with decent lives,
>
>It is not,
Why do you want people to try to believe that?
>it is the opposite of raising them.
>
>The opposite of providing them with decent lives is providing them with
>shitty lives.
That's another alternative at least.
> > 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.
>
>This strawman has no straw left in it.
Then why do you want people to think of providing decent
lives and elimination in the same way.
>>>>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.
>
>Based on nothing.
LOL! No you poor little fool. It has been worked out because
some people cared enough to consider the lives of the animals
themselves and try to improve them instead of prevent them.
>>>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
>
>That's redundant.
>
>, and consider that to be superior to
>> complete elimination
>
>It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never exist
>in the first place.
Why do you want people to think it's not good for the animals
who do?
>> even after all these years of your supposed
>> arguments trying to change my mind about it.
>
>What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for
>failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to be
>born,
I don't. What I do is point out that they don't do anything
to encourage better conditions for livestock with their lifestyle
and you hate it. WHY you hate it of course it up to me to decide
because you will never be honest about it IF you will acknowledge
the fact at all.
>it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument .
In contrast to that contemptible lie:
Consideration of the animals' lives is a NECESSARY part of
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
