XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 24 Apr 2006 11:07:58 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >AW doesn't require livestock animals to exist.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>     AW for livestock does.   
   >> >   
   >> >Again missing the point. We promote AW for livestock because livestock   
   >> >exist. We don't provide life for livestock so that AW for livestock can   
   >> >exist.   
   >>   
   >>     They do none the less, so it should be taken into consideration. It's   
   >> pitifully amusing that you pretend to be in favor of decent AW while   
   >> opposing giving consideration to the lives of livestock, and at the   
   >> same time you encourage consideration of non-existent supposedly   
   >> potential wildlife that you appear to feel suffer a loss from never   
   >> existing.   
   >   
   >Please stop lying about me.   
      
       I sure know that feeling. So what are you saying I'm lying about?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)