On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:34:32 GMT, Dutch  wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>> 
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate arguments 
>>>>> exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is 
>>>>> better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all. " - Salt
>>>>
>>>>     Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of 
>>>> positive value is better than not experiencing it, 
>>>
>>> It's an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to the 
>>> thought...
>> 
>>     Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
>> benefitting from their lives.
>
>
>If by "benefiting from life" you mean deriving some enjoyment from the 
>good things in it, then nothing. 

    Congratulations on whatever brief period of time you're able
to continue appreciating that fact.

>There is no doubt that every life contains some juice, some joy, 

    Yes there is. Some lives never contain any joy, like those of poor
little beasts who are torturously killed by ants as they're attempting 
to hatch from their shells, for example.

>and we should be focused on promoting 
>more of that for the animals we raise. But that is not an issue until a 
>being comes into existence. 

    You appear to think things like deliberately providing decent
lives for livestock just happen instantly, and probably by some
sort of magic or maybe simply by farmers making a wish. In contrast
to your naive imaginings, such things have to be first decided upon
in advance, and then planned in advance, and then prepared in
advance. Your insistence that the issue not even be considered 
until the animals already exist shows either astonishing ignorance,
stupidity and naivety, or incredible dishonesty. Which do you want
people to believe it is?

>What is wrong is to believe that we can take 
>this innate juice of life and use it as a justification for raising food 
>animals. Its obvious self-serving sophism.

    In contrast to that grotesque dishonesty: It is NECESSARY 
to consider the animals themselves, when considering whether
or not it's cruel for them to be raised for food.

>[..]
>>>
>>>>     There's nothing that you have ever written, said, or
>>>> thought that tells us how you think pre-existent entities
>>>> are ruining our lives. So I AGAIN challenge you to try
>>>> explaining it NOW:
>>> How did you get this confused? 
>> 
>>     The confusion is on your end, not mine.
>
>No, it's not. You have never shown that you understand the inherent 
>contradiction in the phrase "benefit from life". 

    I'm aware of some things:

1. Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.
2. Some people/person insists that something to do with
pre-existent entities prevents existing ones from benefitting
from their own existence, but can't explain exactly how they 
think it is accomplished.

>You argue for the idea 
>in the rhetorical sense to mean "get enjoyment from life" but in the 
>Logic of the Larder it is used literally, as in "to benefit by coming 
>into existence". That's where the fundamental error in the whole 
>argument lies.

    Some lives are of positive value and some are not. You
still can't make a distinction between:
_________________________________________________________
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the 
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make 
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and you also are in no position to try making a distinction
between when life has positive value for animals and when 
it does not. Such details are beyond you/Goo.

>  I point out that you
>> have never explained it, can't explain it, and therefore never
>> will be able to explain it. You want to pretend that you've already
>> explained it even though you can't do it now nor can you provide
>> any examples of you having done it in the past, nor will there ever
>> be any examples of you doing it in the future.
>
>I did just above.

    You did when you wrote: "nothing". Your referrence to the
talking pig is as always meaningless.

>>> "Pre-existent entities" are not ruining 
>>> anything, the concept is postulated as a way to allow the idea "coming 
>>> into existence is a benefit" to make logical sense. Of course common 
>>> sense says that no such entities "exist", therefore coming into 
>>> existence cannot be a benefit.
>> 
>>     What you need to do in order to back up your claim, is explain
>> how you think your own pre-existence or/and that of any other
>> entity is preventing you from benefitting from your own existence.
>> But you can't, meaning that you give us nothing to even consider
>> much less put faith in. Amusingly for me, you have obviously put
>> your faith in the idea even though you are completely unable to
>> explain why or how. If you think you can explain it, try doing it
>
>You're missing the point. 

    I'm WAY beyond you on all of this, and you can't catch up.
Billions of animals DO experience decent lives of positive value
because they are raised for food. The fact that you don't want
people to take that into consideration shows several things:

1. you yourself are completely inconsiderate of the animals.
2. most likely you are very disturbed by the fact that humans
raise animals for food. 
3. you do not want people to raise animals for food.
4. you are opposed to providing and appreciating decent lives
for livestock, ie: decent animal welfare.
5. you are in favor of eliminating livestock, and almost certainly
all other domestic animals as well.
6. you are opposed to people deliberately supporting decent
lives for livestock with their livestyle, because it works directly
against the elimination objective.

>Once an animal exists, THEN there are many 
>ways to enhance that life. 

    I cannot believe that you are too ignorant, stupid and 
naive to understand that livestock need to be planned 
for a number of different ways IN ADVANCE. I can not 
believe that you are too ignorant, stupid and naive to 
understand that one of the ways they need to be planned
for in advance is to decide whether or not to raise them
at all in the first place.

>That's all very admirable. 

    How do you think it would work then? Explain exactly
how instead of planning for future hens, you think existing
hens in battery cages can be provided with decent lives.
Then try explaining why you don't think we should consider
future hens even if existing ones are somehow provided with 
decent lives by your plan that you have (could/can not!!!) 
explained in detail.

>If you insist on 
>saying that existence itself justifies raising beings then the door is 
>wide open for the kind of arguments that slavers have made.

    Obviously you are disturbed by the fact that humans
raise animals for food and think of it in the same way you
think of human slavery. You are mentally and emotionally
disturbed by and opposed to the fact. Those of us who
are not are able to consider which lives we feel would be
decent and worth living, and which ones we feel would
be of negative value and not worth living. People like
yourself can not make such a distinction and therefore
can't even comprehend how anyone else could do it.
Your limitation stifles and distorts every thought you try
to have regarding the issue of raising animals for food.
Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
are even farther away from being able to appreciate
what could be done to provide improvements which
would change the quality/value of life for billions of
animals in the future.

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:34:32 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
> 
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate arguments 
>>>>>> exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is 
>>>>>> better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all. " - Salt
>>>>>     Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of 
>>>>> positive value is better than not experiencing it, 
>>>> It's an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to the 
>>>> thought...
>>>     Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
>>> benefitting from their lives.
>>
>> If by "benefiting from life" you mean deriving some enjoyment from the 
>> good things in it, then nothing. 
> 
>     Congratulations on whatever brief period of time you're able
> to continue appreciating that fact.

I have always appreciated that animals can enjoy life. Can you grasp 
that there is a difference between "enjoying life", and "benefiting by 
coming into existence"

  >> and we should be focused on promoting
>> more of that for the animals we raise. But that is not an issue until a 
>> being comes into existence. 
> 
>     You appear to think things like deliberately providing decent
> lives for livestock just happen instantly,

I don't appear to think anything of the sort, stop playing the fool.

  and probably by some
> sort of magic or maybe simply by farmers making a wish. In contrast
> to your naive imaginings, such things have to be first decided upon
> in advance, and then planned in advance, and then prepared in
> advance. Your insistence that the issue not even be considered 
> until the animals already exist shows either astonishing ignorance,
> stupidity and naivety, or incredible dishonesty. Which do you want
> people to believe it is?

The planning of animal welfare is predicated on the knowledge that 
animals *will* exist, *will* be raised.

> 
>> What is wrong is to believe that we can take 
>> this innate juice of life and use it as a justification for raising food 
>> animals. Its obvious self-serving sophism.
> 
>     In contrast to that grotesque dishonesty: It is NECESSARY 
> to consider the animals themselves, when considering whether
> or not it's cruel for them to be raised for food.

It is necessary to consider if we will be able to provide decent care 
for the animals before we decide to raise them for food. If we cannot, 
then we should not. It's never necessary to believe that we do the 
animals a favor by bringing them into existence, the very suggestion is 
self-serving.

> 
>> [..]
>>>>>     There's nothing that you have ever written, said, or
>>>>> thought that tells us how you think pre-existent entities
>>>>> are ruining our lives. So I AGAIN challenge you to try
>>>>> explaining it NOW:
>>>> How did you get this confused? 
>>>     The confusion is on your end, not mine.

If that were the case then you would not have asked how "pre-existent 
entities are ruining are lives". Nothing I have ever said suggests such 
a nonsensical question.


>> No, it's not. You have never shown that you understand the inherent 
>> contradiction in the phrase "benefit from life". 
> 
>     I'm aware of some things:
> 
> 1. Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.

Life is not a benefit. Life may be *good*, but it can't be a benefit. 
Life is a prerequisite for the ability to obtain a benefit.

> 2. Some people/person insists that something to do with
> pre-existent entities prevents existing ones from benefitting
> from their own existence, but can't explain exactly how they 
> think it is accomplished.

That's the confusion I was talking about.


> 
>> You argue for the idea 
>> in the rhetorical sense to mean "get enjoyment from life" but in the 
>> Logic of the Larder it is used literally, as in "to benefit by coming 
>> into existence". That's where the fundamental error in the whole 
>> argument lies.
> 
>     Some lives are of positive value and some are not. You
> still can't make a distinction between:
> _________________________________________________________
> 1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the 
> distinctive quality of animate beings
> 
> 2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make 
> up the existence of an individual
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life


Your statements above show that although you can copy and paste from a 
dictionary, you don't understand the underlying concepts.

> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> and you also are in no position to try making a distinction
> between when life has positive value for animals and when 
> it does not. Such details are beyond you/Goo.

That's just another silly statement. It's not difficult to see when 
conditions for animals are good or not.

> 
>>  I point out that you
>>> have never explained it, can't explain it, and therefore never
>>> will be able to explain it. You want to pretend that you've already
>>> explained it even though you can't do it now nor can you provide
>>> any examples of you having done it in the past, nor will there ever
>>> be any examples of you doing it in the future.
>> I did just above.
> 
>     You did when you wrote: "nothing". Your referrence to the
> talking pig is as always meaningless.

There's that confusion again.

> 
>>>> "Pre-existent entities" are not ruining 
>>>> anything, the concept is postulated as a way to allow the idea "coming 
>>>> into existence is a benefit" to make logical sense. Of course common 
>>>> sense says that no such entities "exist", therefore coming into 
>>>> existence cannot be a benefit.
>>>     What you need to do in order to back up your claim, is explain
>>> how you think your own pre-existence or/and that of any other
>>> entity is preventing you from benefitting from your own existence.
>>> But you can't, meaning that you give us nothing to even consider
>>> much less put faith in. Amusingly for me, you have obviously put
>>> your faith in the idea even though you are completely unable to
>>> explain why or how. If you think you can explain it, try doing it
>> You're missing the point. 
> 
>     I'm WAY beyond you on all of this, and you can't catch up.
> Billions of animals DO experience decent lives of positive value
> because they are raised for food. The fact that you don't want
> people to take that into consideration shows several things:
> 
> 1. you yourself are completely inconsiderate of the animals.
> 2. most likely you are very disturbed by the fact that humans
> raise animals for food. 
> 3. you do not want people to raise animals for food.
> 4. you are opposed to providing and appreciating decent lives
> for livestock, ie: decent animal welfare.
> 5. you are in favor of eliminating livestock, and almost certainly
> all other domestic animals as well.
> 6. you are opposed to people deliberately supporting decent
> lives for livestock with their livestyle, because it works directly
> against the elimination objective.
> 
>> Once an animal exists, THEN there are many 
>> ways to enhance that life. 
> 
>     I cannot believe that you are too ignorant, stupid and 
> naive to understand that livestock need to be planned 
> for a number of different ways IN ADVANCE. I can not 
> believe that you are too ignorant, stupid and naive to 
> understand that one of the ways they need to be planned
> for in advance is to decide whether or not to raise them
> at all in the first place.
> 
>> That's all very admirable. 
> 
>     How do you think it would work then? Explain exactly
> how instead of planning for future hens, you think existing
> hens in battery cages can be provided with decent lives.
> Then try explaining why you don't think we should consider
> future hens even if existing ones are somehow provided with 
> decent lives by your plan that you have (could/can not!!!) 
> explained in detail.
> 
>> If you insist on 
>> saying that existence itself justifies raising beings then the door is 
>> wide open for the kind of arguments that slavers have made.
> 
>     Obviously you are disturbed by the fact that humans
> raise animals for food and think of it in the same way you
> think of human slavery. You are mentally and emotionally
> disturbed by and opposed to the fact. Those of us who
> are not are able to consider which lives we feel would be
> decent and worth living, and which ones we feel would
> be of negative value and not worth living. People like
> yourself can not make such a distinction and therefore
> can't even comprehend how anyone else could do it.
> Your limitation stifles and distorts every thought you try
> to have regarding the issue of raising animals for food.
> Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
> quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
> distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
> are even farther away from being able to appreciate
> what could be done to provide improvements which
> would change the quality/value of life for billions of
> animals in the future.

That was all the same misguided garbage you've been spewing for years. 
We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because 
the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible 
lives. Livestock never being born in the first place, never coming into 
existence at all, is NOT a negative alternative. That alternative has no 
moral significance at all, it is not part of a valid critique of 
vegetarians, not part of any rational person's thinking. You've been 
chasing your tail for ten years.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:18:45 GMT, Dutch  wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:34:32 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>> 
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate arguments 
>>>>>>> exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that it is 
>>>>>>> better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at all. " - Salt
>>>>>>     Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of 
>>>>>> positive value is better than not experiencing it, 
>>>>> It's an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to the 
>>>>> thought...
>>>>     Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
>>>> benefitting from their lives.
>>>
>>> If by "benefiting from life" you mean deriving some enjoyment from the 
>>> good things in it, then nothing. 
>> 
>>     Congratulations on whatever brief period of time you're able
>> to continue appreciating that fact.
>
>I have always appreciated that animals can enjoy life. Can you grasp 
>that there is a difference between "enjoying life", and "benefiting by 
>coming into existence"

    I point out the difference to you in almost every post.

>  >> and we should be focused on promoting
>>> more of that for the animals we raise. But that is not an issue until a 
>>> being comes into existence. 
>> 
>>     You appear to think things like deliberately providing decent
>> lives for livestock just happen instantly,
>
>I don't appear to think anything of the sort, 

    As far as I can recall this is the FIRST time you've indicated
that you're even aware that there is good reason to take the
lives of future animals into consideration. Up until now you've
maniacally ridiculed and opposed it whenever I've pointed out 
that they should be taken into consideration.

"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

>stop playing the fool.
>
>  and probably by some
>> sort of magic or maybe simply by farmers making a wish. In contrast
>> to your naive imaginings, such things have to be first decided upon
>> in advance, and then planned in advance, and then prepared in
>> advance. Your insistence that the issue not even be considered 
>> until the animals already exist shows either astonishing ignorance,
>> stupidity and naivety, or incredible dishonesty. Which do you want
>> people to believe it is?
>
>The planning of animal welfare is predicated on the knowledge that 
>animals *will* exist, *will* be raised.

    That's quite a complete turn-around from the insistence that they
never be considered until after they exist.

>>> What is wrong is to believe that we can take 
>>> this innate juice of life and use it as a justification for raising food 
>>> animals. Its obvious self-serving sophism.
>> 
>>     In contrast to that grotesque dishonesty: It is NECESSARY 
>> to consider the animals themselves, when considering whether
>> or not it's cruel for them to be raised for food.
>
>It is necessary to consider if we will be able to provide decent care 
>for the animals before we decide to raise them for food. If we cannot, 
>then we should not. It's never necessary to believe that we do the 
>animals a favor by bringing them into existence, the very suggestion is 
>self-serving.

    It is NECESSARY to consider the animals themselves and
whether life has a positive or negative value FOR THEM in
order to determine whether or not it's cruel TO THEM to be
raised for food. Why do you so very badly not want to accept
the fact, do you have any idea?

>>> [..]
>>>>>>     There's nothing that you have ever written, said, or
>>>>>> thought that tells us how you think pre-existent entities
>>>>>> are ruining our lives. So I AGAIN challenge you to try
>>>>>> explaining it NOW:
>>>>> How did you get this confused? 
>>>>     The confusion is on your end, not mine.
>
>If that were the case then you would not have asked how "pre-existent 
>entities are ruining are lives". Nothing I have ever said suggests such 
>a nonsensical question.

    In contrast to that, EVERY time you've tried to explain what
you think prevents life from being a benefit it has been entirely
dependant on assigning some great significance to the concept 
of pre-existence, yet you have never been able to explain exactly
HOW you think pre-existence prevents us from benefitting from
existence. Try doing it NOW. GO:

. . .
>> and you also are in no position to try making a distinction
>> between when life has positive value for animals and when 
>> it does not. Such details are beyond you/Goo.
>
>That's just another silly statement. It's not difficult to see when 
>conditions for animals are good or not.

    Then try explaining why you believe people should not
appreciate the distinction between when life has positive
value and when it has negative value for the animals, and 
insist that they not include it in their thoughts regarding 
raising animals for food. Go:

. . .
>>> If you insist on 
>>> saying that existence itself justifies raising beings then the door is 
>>> wide open for the kind of arguments that slavers have made.
>> 
>>     Obviously you are disturbed by the fact that humans
>> raise animals for food and think of it in the same way you
>> think of human slavery. You are mentally and emotionally
>> disturbed by and opposed to the fact. Those of us who
>> are not are able to consider which lives we feel would be
>> decent and worth living, and which ones we feel would
>> be of negative value and not worth living. People like
>> yourself can not make such a distinction and therefore
>> can't even comprehend how anyone else could do it.
>> Your limitation stifles and distorts every thought you try
>> to have regarding the issue of raising animals for food.
>> Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
>> quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
>> distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
>> are even farther away from being able to appreciate
>> what could be done to provide improvements which
>> would change the quality/value of life for billions of
>> animals in the future.
>
>That was all the same misguided garbage you've been spewing for years. 
>We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because 
>the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible 
>lives. 

    Billions of them do. Some have decent lives of 
positive value and some don't. You have been 
opposing me for suggesting that people keep the
distinction firmly in mind, you have been opposing 
me for suggesting that people give the lives of the
animals any consideration at all, and you have
certainly been opposing me for encouraging people
to consider deliberately trying to contribute to lives
of positive value for animals in the future, ie: for
promoting decent AW over elimination.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:05:47 -0700 (PDT), Burkie  wrote:

>On Jul 24, 11:34 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:18:45 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
>> >> quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
>> >> distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
>> >> are even farther away from being able to appreciate
>> >> what could be done to provide improvements which
>> >> would change the quality/value of life for billions of
>> >> animals in the future.
>>
>> >That was all the same misguided garbage you've been spewing for years.
>> >We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because
>> >the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible
>> >lives.
>>
>>     Billions of them do. Some have decent lives of
>> positive value and some don't. You have been
>> opposing me for suggesting that people keep the
>> distinction firmly in mind, you have been opposing
>> me for suggesting that people give the lives of the
>> animals any consideration at all, and you have
>> certainly been opposing me for encouraging people
>> to consider deliberately trying to contribute to lives
>> of positive value for animals in the future, ie: for
>> promoting decent AW over elimination.
>
>I don't know who you are, and that's probably just as well.   However,
>the reproduction of animals is not limited to the UK....

    What makes you think I wasn't already more than well
aware of that?

>it's a world-
>wide affair.   While you may have your opinion and are entitled to it,
>is fine and good.  But you live in a so-called "civilized" country,
>which has now gotten the reputation of having some, if not the most
>serious animal health problems in the world.   It seems your UK 

    There is no "my" UK, since I live in the US.

>can't
>handle any animal diseases as well as others, from which you are now
>being supplied beef, chicken and other poultry, pork and other meats,
>which others in your own country readily buy, at the expense of your
>own producers.

    The terrorist activities of eliminationists in the UK regularly involve
the introduction and spread of disease among that country's livestock,
imo. No one can convince me that eliminationist terrorism is not one of, 
if not the biggest reason for problems with diseased livestock in the UK.

>You have a very bad habit of stating that your problems are
>attributable to livestock owners and keepers of livestock and poultry,

    Do you have any examples?

>thereby sliding "ALL" in a category of being guilty of heinous animal
>and animal welfare abuses.   That, is not a fair assumption, by any
>means.

    I believe it's a fair assumption to say that eliminationist terrorism
is guilty of heinous animal abuses...not only for animals who are
victims to their fur farm terrorism which include the farmed animals
as well as those they kill when they are "liberated", but also the
animals who suffer when the terrorists deliberately spread disease
among livestock, and also the countless animals who have suffered
and will suffer in the future as a result of terrorism directed at animal
research.

>The EU has done its part to supply itself with meat from any foreign
>country that produces enough quality meat for its own Hilton Quota,
>and has repeatedly chosen that alternative, 

    That all gets back to the influence of eliminationists, imo. It is
their fault entirely.

>while insisting that your
>producers meet all it's oft-times maniacal rules.   Again, at the
>expense of your own producers.
>
>So how does one that earns a living, trying to produce a quality
>product for your public to purchase for their own use?
>
>Not everyone has chosen to become a vegan or vegetarian.   And you
>have your right to be one.   

    Yes, but I'm not one. By consuming animal products I'm glad to 
contribute to the lives of beef and dairy cattle, broiler chickens and 
their parents, turkeys, and cage free egg producers and their parents, 
the vast majority of which I believe have decent lives of positive value.

>However, it is you that is causing the
>very problem that you so oppose:   reduction of animal welfare quality

    I'm in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
elimination objective:
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare 
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the 
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with 
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the 
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the 
achievement of animal rights.

. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

. . .  Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal 
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition 
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual 
reasons.

. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace 
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>with your ridiculous statements 

    Like what?

>for which you have never provided much proof.
>
>Burkie in Kansas

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker in all Georgia, 
lied and presented no challenge:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:05:47 -0700 (PDT), Burkie  wrote:
> 
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker in all Georgia, lied and presented no challenge: 
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:18:45 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker in all Georgia, lied and presented no challenge: 
>>>>
>>>>> Since you are opposed to the practice regardless of
>>>>> quality of life you not only are unable to appreciate any
>>>>> distinction beteen positive and negative lives, but you
>>>>> are even farther away from being able to appreciate
>>>>> what could be done to provide improvements which
>>>>> would change the quality/value of life for billions of
>>>>> animals in the future.
>>>> That was all the same misguided garbage you've been spewing for years.
>>>> We plan and think about billions of animals living decent lives because
>>>> the unacceptable alternative is billions of animals living horrible
>>>> lives.
>>>     Billions of them do. Some have decent lives of
>>> positive value and some don't. You have been
>>> opposing me for suggesting that people keep the
>>> distinction firmly in mind, you have been opposing
>>> me for suggesting that people give the lives of the
>>> animals any consideration at all, and you have
>>> certainly been opposing me for encouraging people
>>> to consider deliberately trying to contribute to lives
>>> of positive value for animals in the future, ie: for
>>> promoting decent AW over elimination.
>> I don't know who you are, and that's probably just as well.   However,
>> the reproduction of animals is not limited to the UK....
> 
>     What makes you think I wasn't already more than well
> aware of that?

Because of your obvious and severe mental limitations.

dh@. wrote:

>     I'm in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
> elimination objective:

That's actually true, but I suspect not in the way you 
mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR 
agenda which relies on images of animals being abused, 
not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement 
recognized this a number of years ago and many AR 
leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a 
goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other 
groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main 
plank in their public platform. That does not mean 
they always take the best care of the animals in their 
care, but it's part of their public face, just as AW 
is part of your (and my) stated agenda even though you 
do not always act in accord with it.

If you mean that elimination would mean no more 
livestock, and hence make it impossible to improve AW, 
that is and always will be an absurd argument.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:13:20 GMT, Dutch  wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>>     I'm in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
>> elimination objective:
>
>That's actually true, 

    Unlike yourself, I don't lie about the fact.

>but I suspect not in the way you 
>mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR 
>agenda which relies on images of animals being abused, 
>not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement 
>recognized this a number of years ago and many AR 
>leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a 
>goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other 
>groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main 
>plank in their public platform. 

    They exploit AW issues to obtain funding for their 
true objective which is completely different. They use
the money people send them trying to promote better
lives for livestock, to try to eliminate the very animals
people are sending them money in an attempt to help.

>That does not mean 
>they always take the best care of the animals in their 
>care, but it's part of their public face, just as AW 
>is part of your (and my) stated agenda even though you 
>do not always act in accord with it.

    No, I support AW while you try to prevent people
from taking it into consideration more often than not,
though from time to time you do attempt the dishonest
trick of pretending that the objective to provide decent 
lives and the objective to prevent lives are somehow 
the same thing. 

>If you mean that elimination would mean no more 
>livestock, and hence make it impossible to improve AW, 
>that is and always will be an absurd argument.

    LOL! It will always be one of those facts you hate.
Why do you hate that particular fact so insanely, do
you have any idea? I've asked you a number of times
and you never will say why, but it obviously freaks you
out. Well, remember you suggested that I kill myself
rather than point out the fact that AW and the misnomer
are completely different ideas which work against each
other:
_________________________________________________________
dh pointed out:  

> 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.

"Dutch" insanely howled in response:

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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:13:20 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
> 
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>     I'm in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
>>> elimination objective:
>> That's actually true, 
> 
>     Unlike yourself, I don't lie about the fact.

Show where I lied about that.

>> but I suspect not in the way you 
>> mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR 
>> agenda which relies on images of animals being abused, 
>> not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement 
>> recognized this a number of years ago and many AR 
>> leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a 
>> goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other 
>> groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main 
>> plank in their public platform. 
> 
>     They exploit AW issues to obtain funding for their 
> true objective which is completely different. They use
> the money people send them trying to promote better
> lives for livestock,

Which they do, see the MacD's and Burger King campaigns.

  to try to eliminate the very animals
> people are sending them money in an attempt to help.

Everyone is trying to eliminate those livestock 
animals, most of all meat consumers, who want to eat 
them. ARAs prefer that they never be born. What's 
wrong with that?



>> That does not mean 
>> they always take the best care of the animals in their 
>> care, but it's part of their public face, just as AW 
>> is part of your (and my) stated agenda even though you 
>> do not always act in accord with it.
> 
>     No, I support AW while you try to prevent people
> from taking it into consideration more often than not

Never, stop the lying shitbag.

> though from time to time you do attempt the dishonest
> trick of pretending that the objective to provide decent 
> lives and the objective to prevent lives are somehow 
> the same thing. 

They're not the same thing, I never said they were.

> 
>> If you mean that elimination would mean no more 
>> livestock, and hence make it impossible to improve AW, 
>> that is and always will be an absurd argument.
> 
>     LOL! It will always be one of those facts you hate.

I don't hate it, I mock it mercilessly because it's 
the dumbest idea ever conceived. It ranks up there 
with the belief that it would be bad to eliminate 
crime because it would put police forces out of work.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:13:20 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>> 
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>     I'm in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
>>>> elimination objective:
>>> That's actually true, 
>> 
>>     Unlike yourself, I don't lie about the fact.
>
>Show where I lied about that.
>
>>> but I suspect not in the way you 
>>> mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR 
>>> agenda which relies on images of animals being abused, 
>>> not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement 
>>> recognized this a number of years ago and many AR 
>>> leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a 
>>> goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other 
>>> groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main 
>>> plank in their public platform. 
>> 
>>     They exploit AW issues to obtain funding for their 
>> true objective which is completely different. They use
>> the money people send them trying to promote better
>> lives for livestock,
>
>Which they do, see the MacD's and Burger King campaigns.
>
>  to try to eliminate the very animals
>> people are sending them money in an attempt to help.
>
>Everyone is trying to eliminate those livestock 
>animals, most of all meat consumers, who want to eat 
>them. ARAs prefer that they never be born. What's 
>wrong with that?

     I've been challenging you to explain how it would
be better to eliminate all livestock than it would be to
provide livestock with decent lives, but you've never
been able to explain. If you think you're finally able to 
attempt this 7+ year old challenge then try doing it. GO:

>>> That does not mean 
>>> they always take the best care of the animals in their 
>>> care, but it's part of their public face, just as AW 
>>> is part of your (and my) stated agenda even though you 
>>> do not always act in accord with it.
>> 
>>     No, I support AW while you try to prevent people
>> from taking it into consideration more often than not
>
>Never, stop the lying shitbag.
>
>> though from time to time you do attempt the dishonest
>> trick of pretending that the objective to provide decent 
>> lives and the objective to prevent lives are somehow 
>> the same thing. 
>
>They're not the same thing, 

    I will certainly save that quote.

>I never said they were.
>
>> 
>>> If you mean that elimination would mean no more 
>>> livestock, and hence make it impossible to improve AW, 
>>> that is and always will be an absurd argument.
>> 
>>     LOL! It will always be one of those facts you hate.
>
>I don't hate it, 

    It certainly appears that you hate it very much, 
and lie about your hatred.

>I mock it mercilessly because it's 
>the dumbest idea ever conceived. 

    Only to people who are so disturbed by the fact that
humans eat meat, that their own selfish interests prevent
them from giving the animals proper consideration.

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
> 
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:13:20 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     I'm in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
>>>>> elimination objective:
>>>> That's actually true, 
>>>     Unlike yourself, I don't lie about the fact.
>> Show where I lied about that.
>>
>>>> but I suspect not in the way you 
>>>> mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR 
>>>> agenda which relies on images of animals being abused, 
>>>> not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement 
>>>> recognized this a number of years ago and many AR 
>>>> leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a 
>>>> goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other 
>>>> groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main 
>>>> plank in their public platform. 
>>>     They exploit AW issues to obtain funding for their 
>>> true objective which is completely different. They use
>>> the money people send them trying to promote better
>>> lives for livestock,
>> Which they do, see the MacD's and Burger King campaigns.
>>
>>  to try to eliminate the very animals
>>> people are sending them money in an attempt to help.
>> Everyone is trying to eliminate those livestock 
>> animals, most of all meat consumers, who want to eat 
>> them. ARAs prefer that they never be born. What's 
>> wrong with that?
> 
>      I've been challenging you to explain how it would
> be better to eliminate all livestock

As I said, YOU want all livestock eliminated, so it 
can be eaten, as do I.

 > than it would be to
> provide livestock with decent lives

False dichotomy.

> but you've never
> been able to explain.

Because it's a false choice. There are actually more 
options than that.

Here they are in order of least desirable to most.

1. Raise a lot of livestock and treat most of them 
like shit, as we do now,
2. Raise a lot of livestock and treat most of them well,
and tying for top spot
3. Raise a lot of livestock and treat them all well, and
3(a). Raise no livestock at all

 From the standpoint of human morality there is no 
difference at all between 3. and 3(a)


  If you think you're finally able to
> attempt this 7+ year old challenge then try doing it. GO:

You are incapable of issuing a challenge that I can't 
meet.
> 
>>>> That does not mean 
>>>> they always take the best care of the animals in their 
>>>> care, but it's part of their public face, just as AW 
>>>> is part of your (and my) stated agenda even though you 
>>>> do not always act in accord with it.
>>>     No, I support AW while you try to prevent people
>>> from taking it into consideration more often than not
>> Never, stop the lying shitbag.
>>
>>> though from time to time you do attempt the dishonest
>>> trick of pretending that the objective to provide decent 
>>> lives and the objective to prevent lives are somehow 
>>> the same thing. 
>> They're not the same thing, 
> 
>     I will certainly save that quote.

Why? I'll say it as often as you like.

>> I never said they were.
>>
>>>> If you mean that elimination would mean no more 
>>>> livestock, and hence make it impossible to improve AW, 
>>>> that is and always will be an absurd argument.
>>>     LOL! It will always be one of those facts you hate.
>> I don't hate it, 
> 
>     It certainly appears that you hate it very much, 
> and lie about your hatred.

Your perception is badly skewed by your love of the 
failed sophistry, LoL.

> 
>> I mock it mercilessly because it's 
>> the dumbest idea ever conceived. 
> 
>     Only to people who are so disturbed by the fact that
> humans eat meat, that their own selfish interests prevent
> them from giving the animals proper consideration.

The primary supporters whose quotes can be found 
online are strict utilitarian ARAs.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:09:46 GMT, Dutch  wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>> 
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:13:20 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     I'm in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
>>>>>> elimination objective:
>>>>> That's actually true, 
>>>>     Unlike yourself, I don't lie about the fact.
>>> Show where I lied about that.
>>>
>>>>> but I suspect not in the way you 
>>>>> mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR 
>>>>> agenda which relies on images of animals being abused, 
>>>>> not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement 
>>>>> recognized this a number of years ago and many AR 
>>>>> leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a 
>>>>> goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other 
>>>>> groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main 
>>>>> plank in their public platform. 
>>>>     They exploit AW issues to obtain funding for their 
>>>> true objective which is completely different. They use
>>>> the money people send them trying to promote better
>>>> lives for livestock,
>>> Which they do, see the MacD's and Burger King campaigns.
>>>
>>>  to try to eliminate the very animals
>>>> people are sending them money in an attempt to help.
>>> Everyone is trying to eliminate those livestock 
>>> animals, most of all meat consumers, who want to eat 
>>> them. ARAs prefer that they never be born. What's 
>>> wrong with that?
>> 
>>      I've been challenging you to explain how it would
>> be better to eliminate all livestock
>
>As I said, YOU 

    You have failed again. The challenge once more
has defeated you.

>want all livestock eliminated, so it 
>can be eaten, as do I.
>
> > than it would be to
>> provide livestock with decent lives
>
>False dichotomy.

    Not when they're provided with decent lives. You lied.

>> but you've never
>> been able to explain.
>
>Because it's a false choice. 

    You're still lying.

>There are actually more options than that.

    We weren't discussing entirely different options.

>Here they are in order of least desirable to most.
>
>1. Raise a lot of livestock and treat most of them 
>like shit, as we do now,
>2. Raise a lot of livestock and treat most of them well,
>and tying for top spot
>3. Raise a lot of livestock and treat them all well, and
>3(a). Raise no livestock at all
>
> From the standpoint of human morality there is no 
>difference at all between 3. and 3(a)
>
>
>  If you think you're finally able to
>> attempt this 7+ year old challenge then try doing it. GO:
>
>You are incapable of issuing a challenge that I can't 
>meet.

    That's a blatant lie, made obvious by your failure in
this particular thread. I've been challenging you to explain 
how it would be better to eliminate all livestock than it would 
be to provide livestock with decent lives but you STILL have
never been able to explain. Try doing it NOW:

>>>>> That does not mean 
>>>>> they always take the best care of the animals in their 
>>>>> care, but it's part of their public face, just as AW 
>>>>> is part of your (and my) stated agenda even though you 
>>>>> do not always act in accord with it.
>>>>     No, I support AW while you try to prevent people
>>>> from taking it into consideration more often than not
>>> Never, stop the lying shitbag.
>>>
>>>> though from time to time you do attempt the dishonest
>>>> trick of pretending that the objective to provide decent 
>>>> lives and the objective to prevent lives are somehow 
>>>> the same thing. 
>>> They're not the same thing, 
>> 
>>     I will certainly save that quote.
>
>Why? I'll say it as often as you like.
>
>>> I never said they were.
>>>
>>>>> If you mean that elimination would mean no more 
>>>>> livestock, and hence make it impossible to improve AW, 
>>>>> that is and always will be an absurd argument.
>>>>     LOL! It will always be one of those facts you hate.
>>> I don't hate it, 
>> 
>>     It certainly appears that you hate it very much, 
>> and lie about your hatred.
>
>Your perception is badly skewed by your love of the 
>failed sophistry, LoL.
>
>> 
>>> I mock it mercilessly because it's 
>>> the dumbest idea ever conceived. 
>> 
>>     Only to people who are so disturbed by the fact that
>> humans eat meat, that their own selfish interests prevent
>> them from giving the animals proper consideration.
>
>The primary supporters whose quotes can be found 
>online are strict utilitarian ARAs.

    From my experience it is ONLY people who are disturbed
by the fact that humans eat meat--like you--who are unable
to consider the animals and can only consider their own
self-centered interests. None of the meat consumers I've
discussed it with have had any problem considering the
animals when considering whether or not it's cruel to the
animals to be raised for food. Only eliminationists refuse to
consider the animals, when pretending to consider the 
animals.

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and 
said, "How can I be more stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he 
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:09:46 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
> 
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be more stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be more stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:13:20 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be more stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I'm in favor of providing decent AW, which works AGAINST the
>>>>>>> elimination objective:
>>>>>> That's actually true, 
>>>>>     Unlike yourself, I don't lie about the fact.
>>>> Show where I lied about that.
>>>>
>>>>>> but I suspect not in the way you 
>>>>>> mean. Good AW takes away some of the sting of the AR 
>>>>>> agenda which relies on images of animals being abused, 
>>>>>> not on images of happy barnyards. The AR movement 
>>>>>> recognized this a number of years ago and many AR 
>>>>>> leaders began to distance themselves from good AW as a 
>>>>>> goal of the movement. PeTA, however, as do other 
>>>>>> groups, still promotes and uses improving AW as a main 
>>>>>> plank in their public platform. 
>>>>>     They exploit AW issues to obtain funding for their 
>>>>> true objective which is completely different. They use
>>>>> the money people send them trying to promote better
>>>>> lives for livestock,
>>>> Which they do, see the MacD's and Burger King campaigns.
>>>>
>>>>  to try to eliminate the very animals
>>>>> people are sending them money in an attempt to help.
>>>> Everyone is trying to eliminate those livestock 
>>>> animals, most of all meat consumers, who want to eat 
>>>> them. ARAs prefer that they never be born. What's 
>>>> wrong with that?
>>>      I've been challenging 

No.  No challenge, Goo.  You do not, ever, pose a challenge.  You could not.


>> As I said, YOU 
> 
>     You have failed again.

No.  He succeeded, again.


> The challenge 

No challenge, Goo.