On Jul 24, 11:34 am, dh@. wrote:
> 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.

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....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 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.

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

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, 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.   However, it is you that is causing the
very problem that you so oppose:   reduction of animal welfare quality
with your ridiculous statements for which you have never provided much
proof.

Burkie in Kansas

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008, Goo lied, and lied, and lied:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:54:08 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:09:46 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>
>No.  No challenge, Goo.  You do not, ever, pose a challenge.  You could not.

    It's a challenge that you ALWAYS fail Goober, and 
always will. You have no argument to support you 
claims that elimination would be better.

>>>As I said, YOU 
>>
>>    You have failed again. 
>
>No.  He succeeded, again.

    LOL!!! That's a blatant lie Goob since he didn't even
make an attempt, much less did he make an attempt
that was in some way successful. You suck at this, Goo.

>>The challenge once more has defeated you.
>
>No challenge, Goo.

    Goober, first you lied and said there was no challenge,
then you lied and said your "Dutch" character had met
the challenge and succeeded even though he failed to
make any attempt whatsoever, and now you're lying that
there was no challenge again. You have outstupided
yourself with the blatancy of your own lies AGAIN Goo. 
. . .
>>    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 even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and 
so he wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008, Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
> 
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *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 even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he wrote: 
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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

*NO* challenge.


>>>>> to explain how it would
>>>>> be better to eliminate all livestock
>> No.  No challenge, Goo.  You do not, ever, pose a challenge.  You could not.
> 
>     It's a challenge

*NO* challenge, Goo.  You, GooFuckwit David Harrison, *cannot* present a 
challenge; not ever.


>>>> As I said, YOU 
>>>    You have failed again. 
>> No.  He succeeded, again.
> 
>     LOL!!!

He succeeded.


>>> The challenge once more has defeated you.
>> No challenge, Goo.
> 
>     Rudy, first you lied 

No lie from me, no challenge from you.


>>>    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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008, Goo lied, and lied, and lied:
> 
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:54:08 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:09:46 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>> No.  No challenge, Goo.  You do not, ever, pose a challenge.  You could not.
> 
>     It's a challenge that you ALWAYS fail Goober, and 
> always will. You have no argument to support you 
> claims that elimination would be better.

That's not his claim or mine, however, better for 
"who" or "what"?

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:48:17 GMT, Dutch  wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008, Goo lied, and lied, and lied:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:54:08 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:09:46 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>> No.  No challenge, Goo.  You do not, ever, pose a challenge.  You could not.
>> 
>>     It's a challenge that you ALWAYS fail Goober, and 
>> always will. You have no argument to support you 
>> claims that elimination would be better.
>
>That's not his claim

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing 
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the 
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from 
killing them." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to 
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and 
said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and 
so he wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:48:17 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
> 
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and
>> said, "How can I be even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and
>> so he wrote: 
>>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, stupid pig-fucking cracker - woke up and said, "How can I be even *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 even *more* stupid today than I was yesterday?", and so he wrote: 
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:54:06 GMT, Dutch  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> No.  No challenge, Goo.  You do not, ever, pose a challenge.  You could not.
>>>     It's a challenge that 

No challenge.


>>> You have no argument to support you 
>>> claims that elimination would be better.
>> That's not his claim or mine,

Correct.  I have never said that "elimination" of livestock is better 
for anything, nor has Dutch.


>> however, better for "who" or "what"? 
> 
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing 
> of the animals erases all of it." 

Not a quote.


> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the 
> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from 
> killing them." 

Not a quote.


> 
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Rudy Canoza

True statement.


> 
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to 
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Rudy Canoza

True statement.