dh@. 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?

Irrelevant. YOU stop pretending that you do. You do not. Your
pretense is a joke, and fools no one. You are merely considering
yourself, and for obvious reasons you need to dress it up as
consideration for animals. Stop it.

On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

we have been here to establish
that your beliefs about animals are purely your
projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
wrong.

We have also been here and found that you have no
idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,

We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.


because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
and are not capable of.

We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment is
one they do not experience.

That's a lie.

Period.

On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
wrote:

He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument

What is then Goo?

Your question doesn't make any sense.

That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their argument".

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. 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.

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. 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.

People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour.

QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY.

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:

People who eat meat should never claim to be doing those animals a favour.

QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU *CONSIDER* ANIMALS IN SOME UNSELFISH WAY.

dh@. wrote:
On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
wrote:

He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument

What is then Goo?

Your question doesn't make any sense.

That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their
argument".

"What is then" was an absurd question, ****wit.

There are several serious flaws, and I have correctly identified them.
You have not. You have come up with a goofy idea because you feel the
need to justify that you kill animals.

dh@. wrote:
On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

we have been here to establish
that your beliefs about animals are purely your
projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
wrong.

We have also been here and found that you have no
idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,

We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.


because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
and are not capable of.

We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
is
one they do not experience.

That's a lie.

No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience
disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no
credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All
we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you.

dh@. wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:02:10 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. 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.

You do not "consider the animals" in some selfless way, ****wit. What
a joke. You are desperately trying to foster the illusion that you do,
but your "consideration" is entirely self-serving. No one is fooled.


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.

non sequitur - utterly non responsive to what Dutch wrote.

No animals "benefit" from coming into existence, ****wit. This is
established as fact.

STOP pretending that you give some selfless consideration to "the farm
animals", ****wit. You do not, and everyone knows you do not.
Everyone knows that all you are doing is trying to foster the illusion
that you do; that what you actually are doing is clumsily trying to
justify your killing of animals.

You are the only person I know for a fact has gotten more stupid

YOU are the only person who has gotten more stupid, ****wit. It begins
with your adoption of a discredited philosophy, the Illogic of the
Larder, and it extends to your labeling established opponents of "ar"
as "aras".

On 13 May 2005 10:03:59 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On 12 May 2005 10:19:48 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:41:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

we have been here to establish
that your beliefs about animals are purely your
projection of your emotions onto animals. That is
called anthropomorphization, and it is philosophically
wrong.

We have also been here and found that you have no
idea whether my beliefs are correct or not,

We DO know that your beliefs are completely incorrect.


because you don't have a clue which emotions they are
and are not capable of.

We do know certain ones that they do not experience. Disappointment
is
one they do not experience.

That's a lie.

No, ****wit. It isn't a lie. Your belief that they can experience
disappointment is purely your anthropomorphic projection. There is no
credible evidence non-human animals can experience disappointment. All
we have are unreliable anecdotes from credulous dopes like you.

You're too stupid for this Goo.

On 13 May 2005 09:58:06 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On 12 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On 9 May 2005 10:58:09 -0700, "Rudy Canoza"
wrote:

He is incapable of seeing the real flaw in their argument

What is then Goo?

Your question doesn't make any sense.

That's because you don't believe there is any "real flaw in their
argument".

"What is then" was an absurd question, ****wit.

There are several serious flaws,

There sure are, and you don't have a clue about any of them.

and I have correctly identified them.
You have not. You have come up with a goofy idea because you feel the
need to justify that you kill animals.