XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:52 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:   
   >>   
   >>> dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>       I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only   
   because   
   >>>> considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works   
   against the   
   >>>> elimination objective, Goo.   
   >>>   
   >>> Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're   
   >>> just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.   
   >>   
   >>      There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only   
   are   
   >> you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might   
   believe   
   >> are most often of negative value, if any.   
   >   
   >So list them.   
      
       For one thing there are some who have lives of negative value in every   
   group   
   including groups where the vast majority of the animals appear to have lives of   
   positive value, like broiler chickens and grass raised cattle. Most of them   
   appear to have decent lives, but some don't for whatever particular reasons.   
   Then in other groups the negative aspect is probably greater than the positive,   
   like with caged egg producers and probably sows in gestation and farrowing   
   crates. However I'm also aware that though farrowing crates probably cause life   
   to be of negative or at least reduced value for the sows, they make life of   
   much   
   greater value for the young pigs. You people can't appreciate such details, but   
   some of us are able to.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)