XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.religion.hindu   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.animals.rights.promotion   
      
   On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:51:29 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   > wrote in message news:bifie71ig1238most0uualq062erk5mho9@4ax.com...   
   >> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:28:31 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:00:15 -0800, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> wrote in message   
   >>>>>news:62i2e71vobtkapeoaqrk9bgngd6fcic640@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>>news:bvagd7drjll6ds6nvounhd5a31ltl21mua@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, dh@. pointed out:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>    All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> one of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> those   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>fact is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>pointing   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>out   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>A meaningless one.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>    For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it   
   >>>>>>>>>> was   
   >>>>>>>>>> that   
   >>>>>>>>>> would   
   >>>>>>>>>> be no reason for you to hate it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you   
   >>>>>>>>>>>don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>    People who want to promote decent AW over elimination.   
   >>>>>>>>>> Doiiieee.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>"Decent AW"  is promoted over "poor AW"   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>    It's also promoted over eliminations.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>By you   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.   
   >>>>. . .   
   >>>>>invalid dichotomy   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Explain how you want people to try to pretend it is. Go:   
   >>>   
   >>>Non-parallel   
   >>>   
   >>>"Decent AW"...relates a scenario where   
   >>>livestock animals are...bred   
   >> . . .   
   >>>"elimination" ... relates to a scenario where no animals are bred   
   >>   
   >>    Then the choice between the two lifestyles isn't a dichotomy at all,   
   >> not a   
   >> false one   
   >   
   >You offer it as a dichotomy ("A over B"), it's false for the reasons I   
   >stated.   
      
       What a blatant lie that is. It's a true choice and not false for any   
   reasons, much less any reasons you can come up with.   
      
   >The whole premise is fake, a very sloppy attempt at sleight of   
   >hand..   
      
       Why do you contemptibly want people to falsley believe they can't   
   deliberately contribute to decent AW situations with their lifestlye, instead   
   of   
   deliberately trying not to?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)