XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.religion.hindu
XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.animals.rights.promotion
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message news:t192f7djr4603g3nvusp497t87ej96e6sn@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>
>I didn't,
You do.
>but both those alternatives are contingent on making the choice to
>be a consumer of animal products. A person who consumes no animal products
>has no connection to the treatment of livestock
They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle, but
veganism does nothing for livestock.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
