XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals   
   XPost: alt.politics   
      
   On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>dh@. wrote:   
   >>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, Dutch   wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, "Dutch"    wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>     wrote in message news:2f4up7t87c51enh7jr8fnh   
   l8ujfj37acm@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>       It means lives that are good.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Right.  That's *all* it ever meant to you.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>       Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>        "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life   
   >>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock   
   >>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental   
   >>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into   
   >>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make   
   >>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something   
   >>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>       In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda,   
   considering the   
   >>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of   
   >>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,   
   >>>   
   >>>No it isn't, it's meaningless.   
   >>>   
   >>>  and ONLY an   
   >>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist   
   >>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is   
   the   
   >>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.   
   >>>   
   >>>Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.   
   >>   
   >>    That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over   
   >>elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive   
   value   
   >>for billions of animals. DUH!   
   >>   
   >>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do   
   you want   
   >>>> to claim that you do?   
   >>>   
   >>>I do feel that way about humans.   
   >>   
   >>    Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt   
   you   
   >>resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life   
   >>balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way   
   about   
   >>it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they   
   don't   
   >>feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty   
   >>much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit   
   >>suicide...not all, but some.   
   >>. . .   
   >>>a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.   
   >>   
   >>    I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of   
   any   
   >>doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with   
   me   
   >>but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his   
   >>name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason   
   either,   
   >>but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his   
   >>arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.   
   >   
   >When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence   
   >that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have   
   >to hunt and kill wild animals for food.   
      
       Yes it sure does. Hunting regulations are one of the things that should   
   tell   
   even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to   
   believe it doesn't, are you able to say?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)