XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
      
   On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:35:40 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote ...   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >You mean you don't like hearing the truth.   
      
       LOL! You lying that elimination is not an alternative is not   
   a case of me hearing the truth you poor fool.   
      
   >>>that is a deliberately skewed, unbalanced juxtaposition. It's   
   >>>dishonest.   
   >>   
   >>    You should stop telling those lives too.   
   >   
   >See above.   
      
       You lied about your previous lie and we both know it. I saw   
   it, but I'm not very impressed by it.   
      
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >No it isn't.   
      
       Yes it is and in fact a number of misnomer addicts have   
   recommended it, and you yourself try to argue in favor of its   
   acceptance as you're trying to do now.   
      
   >To prove it, you can also make the false dichotomy that   
   >elimination of livestock is an alternative to torturing them. That's the   
   >false dichotomy that ARAs use,   
      
       It is an alternative to providing them with lives of negative   
   value as well as to providing them with lives of positive value.   
   They are all alternatives to each other. Why do you want to   
   pretend they're not, do you have any clue about that?   
      
   >you just twisted and perverted their false   
   >argument to suit yourself.   
   >   
   >Providing decent lives is the alternative to providing bad lives. PERIOD   
   >   
   > >> 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?   
   >   
   >People already believe it, everyone does, except you.   
      
       The only people who MIGHT believe it would be some of your   
   fellow misnomer huggers, and of course I suspect a number of   
   those who claim to know they're lying when they do.   
      
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >It is THE alternative.   
      
       LOL!!! Just because it happens to be one of your favorites   
   doesn't necessarily make it "THE" one.   
      
   >>> > 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.   
   >   
   >I've never said I did.   
      
       You've tried to create the impression that they are even   
   though I don't recall you ever being honest about it.   
      
   >Those are two completely different things,   
      
       That's about as much honesty as I've ever seen you display.   
   It usually surprises me on the rare occassions that you're honest   
   about something, as it did this time.   
      
   >not   
   >opposites, just different.   
   >   
   >>>>>>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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)