XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.cats.misc, rec.pets.birds   
      
   On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote   
   >> On Sun, 8 May 2005 18:13:34 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >Quit pretending that you "consider the animals" in some   
   >> >unselfish way, it's obvious that you don't.   
   >>   
   >>     Do you? If so, explain how   
   >   
   >I'm not the one claiming I do.   
      
       Good, because you "ARAs" certainly should never claim to care about   
   the animals that you want to eliminate.   
      
   >When I attack your position you criticize me   
   >for   
   >not "considering the animals". That implies that you DO consider them in   
   >some   
   >unselfish way. That is a lie, your "consideration" is nothing more than a   
   >belief   
   >that the fact that we indirectly cause animals to be born bestows a kind a   
   >moral   
   >credit onto meat consumers. That belief (called "the logic of the larder")   
   >is a mistake.   
      
       Some farm animals' lives are of positive value and some are not. Before   
   you took so many gonadal stupid pills you used to understand that:   
   _________________________________________________________   
   From: "Dutch"    
   Message-ID:    
      
   The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or   
   negative value to the animal.   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   You are the only person I know for a fact has gotten more stupid over the   
   past several years, but you have obviously done it. I haven't done it with you   
   though, so I can still understand that the method of husbandry determines   
   whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal. Your   
   childish "AR" fantasy about a talking pig in no way refutes it either, nor   
   does anything else.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)