XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
      
   On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:31:41 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote in message news:k9vd925al4omec7nfihipcop6103po2gs0@4ax.com...   
   >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:49:15 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> wrote   
   >>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:01:39 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> wrote   
   >>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:57:16 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>You get no moral credit for causing animals to come into existence   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    That doesn't matter.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>It clearly matters to you.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Explain why you think people deserve more credit for abstaining   
   >>>> from animal products, than they would for deliberately contributing   
   >>>> to what they consider to be lives of positive value for livestock.   
   >>>   
   >>>I don't think that. That is an AR/vegan belief which I do not share. My   
   >>>view   
   >>>is that there is no measurable moral distinction to be made between   
   >>>abstaining from animal products and "deliberately contributing to what   
   >>>they   
   >>>consider to be lives of positive value for livestock"   
   >>   
   >>    That's because you're not capable of considering the animals, as I've   
   >> been pointing out for years. Not only are you incapable of doing it   
   >> yourself,   
   >> but you are insanely and maniacally opposed to seeing anyone else do it.   
   >   
   >If you don't breed livestock there is no animals to consider.   
      
       That may be the stupidest thing I've read from you. Whether it is or   
   not, it is a completely stupid statement which only serves to reinforce   
   the fact I've been pointing out for years that you're not capable of   
   considering the animals.   
      
   >>>to use your term. It   
   >>>is a phantom issue raised by animal extremists. The rational response to   
   >>>that argument is to dispel it, not engage it.   
   >>   
   >>    ONLY if you are incapable of considering the animals, as is the case   
   >> with you/"aras".   
   >   
   >No, always.   
      
       ONLY if you are incapable of considering the animals, as I pointed out.   
      
   >>>>>You have frequently attacked veganism for failing   
   >>>>>to support the bringing of livestock into the world, denying those   
   >>>>>animals   
   >>>>>life that they would have had. If that is a moral failing in vegans,   
   >>>>>then   
   >>>>>you must consider bringing those animals into the world (and "providing   
   >>>>>them   
   >>>>>with  decent lives") a moral credit.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    You/"aras" can't understand when it is and when it's not, nor   
   >>>> can you/"they" understand how life could have positive value   
   >>>> to any domestic animals.   
   >>>   
   >>>Don't you think we owe animals we raise for food decent lives?   
   >>   
   >>    Not really. But I do believe we're pathetic assholes when we don't.   
   >   
   >That's contradictory, it's saying the same thing. We *owe them* decent care.   
      
       How do we "owe" them anything? Who decides, and where is it   
   written?   
      
   >>>If so, since when do we get credit for simply repaying what we owe?   
   >>   
   >>    You give your imaginary browny points when you want, and   
   >> withhold them when you want. I've asked you countless times   
   >> why you present your browny points for the elimination objective,   
   >> yet violently snatch them away from deliberately providing decent   
   >> lives for livestock, ie the LoL, ie decent AW, yet you consistently   
   >> fail to explain what's better about elimination instead. It's not my   
   >> fault.   
   >> It IS your fault.   
   >   
   >Why don't you just answer the question,   
      
       I did.   
      
   >why should we get credit for   
   >providing what we owe, decent lives?   
      
       I don't care if you give browny points for it or not. But! That doesn't   
   mean that people should be incapable of considering the animals as   
   you/"aras" so desperately want them to.   
      
   ...   
   >>    The distinction needs to be ALWAYS kept in mind by anyone who has   
   >> even the slightest interest in animals, even though we know you/"aras"   
   >> don't want it to be:   
   >> _________________________________________________________   
   >> From: "Dutch"    
   >> Message-ID:    
   >>   
   >> dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote   
   >>   
   >>> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of   
   >>> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're   
   >>> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.   
   >>   
   >> Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and go   
   >> blow   
   >> your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you can find.   
   >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   >>>   
      
   >>    You consider appreciation for lives of positive value for farm   
   >> animals to be a moral abomination. For that reason I must   
   >> consider YOU to be a moral abomination.   
   >   
   >Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron.   
      
       Obviously the fact has clanged your cognitive dissonance.   
   So why do you cling to your abominable position, if you hate   
   so much to have it pointed out? Does the fact that you detest   
   decent AW, make you ashamed of yourself as it rightly should?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)