XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:05:40 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:35:51 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:24:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>   
   >>      Those are just more things you people hate to think about because they   
   don't   
   >> favor elimination.   
   >   
   >Stop lying, you don't believe I favor elimination,   
      
        You were honest about the fact that you do when you began posting here:   
      
   "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"   
      
   Later you began to pretend that you changed your pov completely to an AW   
   position, but I disbelieve you since you argue against appreciation for when   
   decent AW results in lives of positive value for millions of animals.   
      
   >nobody does. You're   
   >just use that as a convenient strawman to cover your inability to deal   
   >with the legitimate criticism of your silly arguments.   
      
       So far there hasn't been one yet. When I first began posting a dozen years   
   ago I was afraid there might eventually be, but by this time I've gotten pretty   
   comfortable with the idea that there won't. However, if you think you have one   
   I   
   challenge you to present it now. Go:   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)