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.