Re: Faith required to be a strong atheist!
Tim McGaughy
>>>> So we can assume that you agree with Goo's statements?
>>>
>>> You can assume anything you like. If you were genuinely curious you
>>> would simply look at my recent replies to you.
>>
>> Then you agree with Goo's statements?
>
> Check my other posts.
Why do you agree with Goo's statements?
>>> Your curiosity is not my problem, and you have done nothing to make
>>> me interested in satisfying it.
>>
>> Yet here you are.
>
> That's observant of you. I'm here indeed, but not to satisfy your idle,
> smartass curiosity. The question was answered nonetheless, find the answer.
See above.
>> So why are you here?
>
> Because I choose to be.
Earlier, you chose not to be. What caused the change of mind?
>
>>>>>>>> On the subject of dropped topics, could you explain exactly why
>>>>>>>> you think
>>>>>>>> humans are special?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So basically, you can't?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Kewl.
>>>
>>> Kewl? Please, evasive nits can't be <sic> kewt.
>>
>> Are you saying you are an evasive nit? Or are you merely illiterate?
>
> When did you decide to stop beating your wife?
Evasion noted.
>>>> Go ahead, then.
>>>
>>> I don't generally speak on command for evasive nits,
>>
>> So basically, you can't?
>
> Was that supposed to be a logical conclusion?
No, it was supposed to be a question. The question mark is a big clue.
>>> but in general our mental capacity and our incredible capacity to
>>> communicate, present company excepted.
>>
>> What of those with diminished capacity? Are they less special?
>
> You are speaking of the argument from marginal cases, and the refutation
> for that has also already been provided. Get busy if you are interested,
> it is in one of my previous posts.
Inability to answer noted, as is the lie about previously answering.
>>> 'Special' tries
>>>> to make those differences important.
>>>
>>> The difference *are* important,
>>
>> Why?
>
> Why daddy, why?
Inability to answer noted.
>
> Because "sentience" matters little boy, because it is what separates us.
This is just a rewording of your original statement. Why does sentience
matter?
>>> if they weren't important we would bulldoze human homes with the
>>> people in them to create orchards and we would hunt or farm humans
>>> for meat.
>>
>> At various points in history, all these things have been done.The
>> taking of territory by killing those living on it has been a time
>> honored tradition of the human species, and cannibalistic behavior
>> exists in nearly every species on Earth, including humans.
>
> Why is that relevant? Every inhumane and barbaric act imaginable has
> been done, that doesn't make it acceptable in our moral code.
Obviously somebody thought it was acceptable.
Are you arguing that we have an absolute universal moral code?
>> Wild animals are known to hunt people on occasion. Two lions took
>> down, by some accounts, over 100 people at Tsavo, Kenya. So which
>> species was more 'special'? The hunters or the food?
>
> Non sequitur
That's not an answer.
Which is more special, the hunters or the food?
>>> Of course to the extent that great apes share our higher abilities,
>>> they also share that special status, in my view, unlike, say hookworms.
>>
>> Then humans are only a bit more special than the other great apes?
>
> The question has no meaning.
Why not? You declared that the great apes share our 'specialness', so
why is it meaningless to ask how much of our 'specialness' they share?
Is it possible that you just don't want to answer the question?
Dutch
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:a-GdnaXth-aa2AbX...@posted.toastnet...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>>>> So we can assume that you agree with Goo's statements?
>>>>
>>>> You can assume anything you like. If you were genuinely curious you
>>>> would simply look at my recent replies to you.
>>>
>>> Then you agree with Goo's statements?
>>
>> Check my other posts.
>
> Why
Because
Tim McGaughy
Idiotic answer noted.
Dutch
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> So we can assume that you agree with Goo's statements?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can assume anything you like. If you were genuinely curious you
>>>>>> would simply look at my recent replies to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you agree with Goo's statements?
>>>>
>>>> Check my other posts.
>>>
>>> Why
>>
>> Because
>
> Idiotic
People who ask idiotic questions (you) should not expect to be taken
seriously...
You basically have two reasonable options.
1. Go back and pick up all the loose ends you have dropped, find where I
already answered that question (its at least three times now), answer the
pertinent questions I posed which *will* help clear up some of that
confusion, find and read moralstat99 which refutes the argument form
marginal cases, and read the case for speciesism, in 'Regan vs Cohen'. I
can't lead you by the hand. Most of all, THINK.
or
2. Crawl back under whatever rock you live under.
Being an idiot you'll do neither.
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dutch, if I have it right your two key texts are moralstat99.doc and
"The Animal Rights Debate" by Regan and Cohen? I might have a go at
trying to write a detailed response to those when I get round to it.
Dutch
> Dutch, if I have it right your two key texts are moralstat99.doc and
> "The Animal Rights Debate" by Regan and Cohen? I might have a go at
> trying to write a detailed response to those when I get round to it.
Moralstat99 on the marginal cases argument, yes, but Regan vs Cohen just
happens to be the book where I read Cohen's reaction to the "charge" of
speciesism. There are lot of other references to his position out there.
Google Cohen speciesism and you can pick from a lot of different
sources. The Wikipedia is a good start. If I would were you I would try
to avoid the strawmen, such as arguing that mere species membership in
and of itself is not morally relevant, as opposed to everything that
species membership implies, or that species membership is an excuse to
totally disregard the interests of a being. I hope you find the time,
I'm looking forward to reading what you write.
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we can assume that you agree with Goo's statements?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can assume anything you like. If you were genuinely curious
>>>>>>> you would simply look at my recent replies to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you agree with Goo's statements?
>>>>>
>>>>> Check my other posts.
>>>>
>>>> Why
>>>
>>> Because
>>
> idiotic
answer noted again.
> You basically have two reasonable options.
Why do the questions I ask make you uncomfortable?
Dutch
That wasn't one of them.
Your incessant non-responsive questioning bores me. You come across as
nothing more than a garden variety troll. I responded to your questions, my
response involved some effort and self-examination on your part. You
declined that challenge so you effectively derailed any chance of a
meaningful exchange of ideas. I indicated where information is available and
you ignored those suggestions. You asked another question which I answered
repeatedly and you continued to repeat the same question, implying that I
wouldn't answer. Possibly you thought you had a real knockout question, but
when I challenged you back your fallback tactic became to create static. If
that's where you want to set the bar, that's your choice, but it doesn't
interest me. You can't teach me anything about these subjects because you
don't appear to have thought them through enough to have anything
interesting to say about them.
dh
>If I would were you I would try
>to avoid the strawmen, such as arguing that mere species membership in
>and of itself is not morally relevant, as opposed to everything that
>species membership implies, or that species membership is an excuse to
>totally disregard the interests of a being.
"I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - "Dutch"
"It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
of other creatures" - "Dutch"
"It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives
(existence) of livestock, or of any other creature" - "Dutch"
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:r4dca5tc24dfdq51v...@4ax.com...
Non sequitur. You seem to be using the chimp theory, if I type enough random
stuff some of it will eventually make sense.
dh
It looked a lot more like he pointed out failure on your part,
then you lied and said you had actually accomplished what he pointed
out that you had not, and then you quite amusingly suggested that he
go and look for what he had already pointed out you had failed to
provide....suggesting that he go find it FOR YOU. LOL!
Nostrodumbass
<dh@.> wrote in message news:k7qha5h97q50fnbdc...@4ax.com...
The point of view of idiots is irrelevant.
Tim McGaughy
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we can assume that you agree with Goo's statements?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can assume anything you like. If you were genuinely curious
>>>>>>>>> you would simply look at my recent replies to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you agree with Goo's statements?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Check my other posts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why
>>>>>
>>>>> Because
>>>>
>>>> Idiotic answer noted.
>>
>>> idiotic
>>
>> answer noted again.
>>
>>> You basically have two reasonable options.
>>
>> Why do the questions I ask make you uncomfortable?
>
> That wasn't one of them.
Too bad.
Nostrodumbass
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
> Why do the questions I ask make you uncomfortable?
It's not your questions per se, you're just generally an annoying twit,
probably intentionally.
dh
<ne...@spammer.com> wrote:
>> It looked a lot more like he pointed out failure on your part,
>>then you lied and said you had actually accomplished what he pointed
>>out that you had not, and then you quite amusingly suggested that he
>>go and look for what he had already pointed out you had failed to
>>provide....suggesting that he go find it FOR YOU. LOL!
>
>The point of view of idiots is irrelevant.
Your attempted trick is not a point of view, or irrelevent. You
present no examples of what you pretend to be talking about because
there are none. This particular dishonest trick you're trying to get
away with is relevant because it reveals at least these two things:
1. You know there are no examples which is why you can't try to
present any.
2. You know you're lying when you pretend there are some.
Rupert
What, in your view, is he "pretending to be talking about"?
Dutch
> On Sep 14, 8:42 pm, dh@. wrote:
[..]
>> Your attempted trick is not a point of view, or irrelevent. You
>> present no examples of what you pretend to be talking about because
>> there are none. This particular dishonest trick you're trying to get
>> away with is relevant because it reveals at least these two things:
>>
>> 1. You know there are no examples which is why you can't try to
>> present any.
>>
>> 2. You know you're lying when you pretend there are some.
>
> What, in your view, is he "pretending to be talking about"?
It's interesting that our resident bozo uses this tortured expression,
"pretending to be talking about", since his defense of The Logic of the
Larder has degenerated into repeating the same equivocation over and
over, "considering the animals", pretending that he's talking about some
unselfish act (being "considerate") when what it actually means is
thinking that the animals' lives cast reflected glory on consumers of
animal products. He is an interesting case study of someone who locks
onto a particular idea and stops thinking rationally.
dh
wrote:
In this particular example it's his claim that he has already made it clear
how much of Goo's idiocy he does and does not agree with.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:m03lc5dsjm97gq1n0...@4ax.com...
Clear to anyone who read the three or so posts where I said it, not if you
didn't. But not much is clear to you fuckwit, not much at all.
If that was what I was pretending to be talking about then what was I
actually talking about?
Rupert
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:53:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are we talking about Dutch or Nostrodumbass?
dh
You never did. I challenge you to present what you're dishonestly pretending
to talk about, and correctly predict that you can't even make an attempt because
what you're pretending to talk about does not exist.
>not if you
>didn't.
LOL!!! Of course I didn't you idiot, since it/they do not exist.
>But not much is clear to you fuckwit, not much at all.
So far it appears very clear that you're lying again. Unless you can produce
examples of what it appears you're lying about, it will continue to clearly
appear that you're lying.
>If that was what I was pretending to be talking about then what was I
>actually talking about?
You were lying about something that you can produce no example of because it
does not exist.
dh
>Rupert wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 8:42 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>> Your attempted trick is not a point of view, or irrelevent. You
>>> present no examples of what you pretend to be talking about because
>>> there are none. This particular dishonest trick you're trying to get
>>> away with is relevant because it reveals at least these two things:
>>>
>>> 1. You know there are no examples which is why you can't try to
>>> present any.
>>>
>>> 2. You know you're lying when you pretend there are some.
>>
>> What, in your view, is he "pretending to be talking about"?
>
>It's interesting that our resident bozo uses this tortured expression,
>"pretending to be talking about", since his defense of The Logic of the
>Larder has degenerated into repeating the same equivocation over and
>over, "considering the animals", pretending that he's talking about some
>unselfish act (being "considerate")
You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
anticonsideration is superior to having consideration, but you have never been
able to give any good reason(s). In fact all of the "reasons" you've given have
been lies, afaik. Maybe you and your brother Rupert can work together and come
up with a good reason? I doubt it of course, but I challenge you to try.
Dutch
> You were lying about something that you can produce no example of
> because it
> does not exist.
Posts I made and which form part of the permanent record don't exist.
God, for which you have no evidence at all, does.
Gotcha
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
Why do I need to explain something I have already explained countless times?
What's the matter with your brain?
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
I really have no idea what this proposition means: "anticonsideration
is superior to having consideration". You really need to formulate the
point of contention in some way that doesn't beg the question. We
wouldn't accept your contention that any position opposed to yours is
"anticonsideration". You need to frame the point at issue in a neutral
manner. Or at the very least make some effort to explain what you mean.
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c47f7822-096b-40d6...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
-------------->
"Anticonsideration" means opposing The Logic of the Larder. Since raising
livestock leads to animals experiencing life, therefore those life
experiences, inasmuch as they are positive, should count towards the
positive when considering whether raising livestock is morally good thing to
do or not. The proponent of the LoL is incapable of seeing that that is a
circular argument.
dh
wrote:
>On Oct 8, 7:21�am, dh@. wrote:
The guilt or whatever you feel for promoting cage free eggs is a clear
example of what I'm talking about. You don't want to promote or even consider
the lives of cage free laying hens...you are opposed to promoting and
considering their lives...so you are anticonsiderate of them. But you like
"Dutch" have thus far been unable to explain why anyone should consider your
anticonsideration to be superior to having consideration.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:ad27d5d2koglitcel...@4ax.com...
I am very happy to promote cage free eggs.
> You don't want to promote or even consider
> the lives of cage free laying hens...
Why should we? Cage free hens don't have more lives than battery hens. All
that is relevant is the higher quality of life enjoyed by cage free hens.
> you are opposed to promoting and
> considering their lives...so you are anticonsiderate of them. But you like
> "Dutch" have thus far been unable to explain why anyone should consider
> your
> anticonsideration to be superior to having consideration.
The Logic of the Larder is D.O.A. fuckwit, your lame attempts at
equivocation on "consideration" don't convince anyone.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
>
>Why do I need to explain
So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying to talk
about if anything, or like in this case learn that you have no idea and in fact
there really is nothing for you to try to talk about. You wish anticonsideration
was superior to having consideration but it's not, and you're incapable of
making a decent attempt at pretending that it is.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:55:06 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
>>
>>times?
>
> So another person can get an idea of what you think
Anyone genuinely interested, if such people exist, either already know
intuitively that The LOL and your dishonest, transparent, misnomer code
word, "consideration" is bullshit, or they have learned it from the hundreds
of successful arguments people have made against it.
Rupert
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
I don't know what you're referring to here. A lot of activists at
Animal Liberation NSW consider themselves abolitionists and don't wish
to encourage people to buy cage free eggs. I don't really have any
strongly held views about that; I would want to encourage people to
make informed choices as consumers. I wouldn't really want to advocate
buying any particular type of egg until I felt like I was reasonably
well-informed about the methods of production. I haven't been
participating in campaigns about the battery cage system lately
anyway, so the point is moot.
> You don't want to promote or even consider
> the lives of cage free laying hens...you are opposed to promoting and
> considering their lives...so you are anticonsiderate of them. But you like
> "Dutch" have thus far been unable to explain why anyone should consider your
> anticonsideration to be superior to having consideration.- Hide quoted text -
>
Okay, well, let's take a look at this. I have an obligation to
encourage people to buy cage free eggs because this may lead to people
providing financial incentives for other people to bring more hens
into existence? Well, first of all, do I have an obligation to reduce
deaths in developing countries, which it is well within my power to
do? Is my failure to do that to the greatest extent to which I am able
an example of "anticonsideration"? Secondly, what exactly is the
criterion for when bringing a creature into existence is a good thing?
And, thirdly, you may be interested in this discussion here:
http://www.upc-online.org/freerange.html
You are trying to put forward a view on which bringing a creature into
existence can sometimes be a "good thing" and can then justify you in
doing certain things to that creature so long as the life is "of
positive value", and indeed it can be positively immoral *not* to
provide incentives for people to do this. (Presumably the *male*
chicks don't ever get much out of the egg production system because
their lives are very short, but let's not worry about that.)
One central issue is: does this view apply to humans as well? You've
never done an especially impressive job of addressing that issue. You
either evade the question or fail to make clear how your answer can be
reconciled with any remotely acceptable moral view.
Another issue is that resources are being consumed in order to provide
these creatures with life, which could otherwise be freed up for
*other* creatures who would come into existence.
You just haven't managed to explain why there is any good reason to
think that it is obligatory, or even particularly good, to prefer to
buy cage-free eggs to buying no eggs at all. The burden is on *you* to
explain that; not the other way around.
Rupert
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:ad27d5d2koglitcel...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com>
He was talking to me.
> > You don't want to promote or even consider
> > the lives of cage free laying hens...
>
> Why should we? Cage free hens don't have more lives than battery hens. All
> that is relevant is the higher quality of life enjoyed by cage free hens.
>
> > you are opposed to promoting and
> > considering their lives...so you are anticonsiderate of them. But you like
> > "Dutch" have thus far been unable to explain why anyone should consider
> > your
> > anticonsideration to be superior to having consideration.
>
> The Logic of the Larder is D.O.A. fuckwit, your lame attempts at
> equivocation on "consideration" don't convince anyone.- Hide quoted text -
Dutch
-----------
Not exactly, he made a post to a public newsgroup.
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:1jh7d59v7lur9u2jt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:55:06 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
>>
>>Why do I need to explain
>
> So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying to
> talk
> about if anything,
He knows ehat he's talking about. Just because you don't know what he's
talking about then that would indicate that either he's not explaining
himself very well or that you are.... well. the least said about that the
better. Sadly for you, I have no trouble comprehending what Dutch is
talkinig about so it kind of points to the later conclusion drawn above.
dh
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:55:06 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
>>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
>>>
>>>Why do I need to explain
>>
>> So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying to talk
>>about if anything, or like in this case learn that you have no idea and in fact
>>there really is nothing for you to try to talk about. You wish anticonsideration
>>was superior to having consideration but it's not, and you're incapable of
>>making a decent attempt at pretending that it is.
>
>Anyone genuinely interested, if such people exist, either already know
>intuitively that The LOL and your dishonest, transparent, misnomer code
>word, "consideration" is bullshit,
So you're saying that it's impossible for anyone to have
consideration for the lives of any other creatures, which is a
blatant and contemptible lie. I now challenge you to try to
wiggle an inch or two away from your lie if your capable of it,
and:
Try explaining which other beings people are and are not capable
of having consideration for the lives of.
>or they have learned it from the hundreds
>of successful arguments people have made against it.
I've never seen one of those. All I've seen so far are the
blatant and contemptible lies that you have tried unsuccessfully
to promote about it. If there are any decent arguments against
having consideration for the lives of other creatures, just post
them instead of the lies you keep telling.
dh
There was a time when you mentioned something that led me to
believe you got a feeling of guilt or whatever for encouraging
the purchase of cage free eggs.
>I would want to encourage people to
>make informed choices as consumers. I wouldn't really want to advocate
>buying any particular type of egg until I felt like I was reasonably
>well-informed about the methods of production. I haven't been
>participating in campaigns about the battery cage system lately
>anyway, so the point is moot.
The point remains the same regardless of whether or not you
actively participate in campaings or play basketball or whatever
else...
>> You don't want to promote or even consider
>> the lives of cage free laying hens...you are opposed to promoting and
>> considering their lives...so you are anticonsiderate of them. But you like
>> "Dutch" have thus far been unable to explain why anyone should consider your
>> anticonsideration to be superior to having consideration.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Okay, well, let's take a look at this. I have an obligation to
>encourage people to buy cage free eggs because this may lead to people
>providing financial incentives for other people to bring more hens
>into existence?
I don't think anyone has an obligation to do any such thing,
so you made that up.
>Well, first of all, do I have an obligation to reduce
>deaths in developing countries, which it is well within my power to
>do?
None of us do.
>Is my failure to do that to the greatest extent to which I am able
>an example of "anticonsideration"?
Not to me. If you were to proudly try to persuade people who
were doing so or considering doing so, NOT to do so then you
would be guilty of the anticonsideration that "Dutch" is so proud
of.
>Secondly, what exactly is the
>criterion for when bringing a creature into existence is a good thing?
Each person must decide that for himself. Of course for you
misnomer huggers it's easy: If an animal is raised and confined
by humans, you believe its life is of negative value regardless
of how good it actually is. For others of us who are less
maniacally extreme, some livestock have lives of positive value
and some of negative value, which is much more complex a concept
than you appear able to deal with.
>And, thirdly, you may be interested in this discussion here:
>
>http://www.upc-online.org/freerange.html
>
>You are trying to put forward a view on which bringing a creature into
>existence can sometimes be a "good thing" and can then justify you in
>doing certain things to that creature so long as the life is "of
>positive value",
And that link is obviously to an eliminationist website
pretending very poorly to be an AW site. If they were in favor of
promoting decent lives for poultry as they dishonestly pretend to
be with the misnomer they use to represent themselves, then they
would give examples of growers who provide the decent lives for
poultry as the organization is dishonestly pretending to promote.
I didn't look for something I feel certain is not there but if
they do provide info encouraging people to consume certain
products that provide decent lives for poultry, then post
examples of it so I'll learn that I was wrong. If/When you can't
provide any examples, then I'll know I was right about them being
just another dishonest eliminationist organization that no one
can trust.
Here's a fact that you could never learn to appreciate, but
one that I learned to appreciate over thirty years ago: Chickens
who have never been outside don't long to go outside, and even
when they have the opportunity they often will not go out unless
something makes them go. I learned that from personal experience
too.
>and indeed it can be positively immoral *not* to
>provide incentives for people to do this. (Presumably the *male*
>chicks don't ever get much out of the egg production system because
>their lives are very short, but let's not worry about that.)
I went through that particular example in detail with you
more than once.
>One central issue is: does this view apply to humans as well? You've
>never done an especially impressive job of addressing that issue. You
>either evade the question or fail to make clear how your answer can be
>reconciled with any remotely acceptable moral view.
We don't not raise humans for food out of consideration for
the potential humans. Can you even get that far? If you can, then
try explaining as much as you can about it and we can go on from
there. If you can't, then how could you go on to consider it in
detail if you can't even relate to the situation in general?
>Another issue is that resources are being consumed in order to provide
>these creatures with life, which could otherwise be freed up for
>*other* creatures who would come into existence.
I've pointed out in the past that:
1. We have no reason to believe wildlife have better lives than
can be provided for livestock.
2. I've seen a number of places where livestock were raised be
converted into something else, and the something else has always
provided LESS opportunity for wildlife than there was when there
were livestock being raised. So from my own personal experience I
have only reason to disbelieve the impression you're trying to
create.
3. I know from personal experience that wild animals are more
welcome in grazing areas than they are in crop fields.
>You just haven't managed to explain why there is any good reason to
>think that it is obligatory,
I've never even tried, afaik.
>or even particularly good, to prefer to
>buy cage-free eggs to buying no eggs at all.
Since I believe most cage free hens have decent lives of
positive value, and since I would like to see cage free eggs
become more available and more appreciated by egg consumers, I
feel it's better to support that type of farming than not to. The
fact that you don't care is not surprising to me of course, and
even though you just proved the fact that you don't care that
fact is probably still inconceivable to you.
>The burden is on *you* to
>explain that; not the other way around.
I did explain it. You can't appreciate it, but I did explain
it. I could also explain why you can't appreciate it...why you
don't care...and I have explained it hundreds of times to "Dutch"
and probably more than once to you too.
dh
<P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:1jh7d59v7lur9u2jt...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:55:06 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
>>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
>>>
>>>Why do I need to explain
>>
>> So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying to
>> talk
>> about if anything,
>
>He knows ehat he's talking about. Just because you don't know what he's
>talking about then that would indicate that either he's not explaining
>himself very well
He has never provided a single decent reason why a person
should feel that it's ethically superior to refuse to consider
the lives of other creatures than it is to consider them. Maybe
you can help him explain why you people think it's superior, but
I seriously doubt you can even make an attempt. I do however
challenge you to try, so TRY!!!:
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:ocrbd51dpo83r29gl...@4ax.com...
I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. Perhaps you
can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
>
Dutch
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:01:49 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>Anyone genuinely interested, if such people exist, either already know
>>intuitively that The LOL and your dishonest, transparent, misnomer code
>>word, "consideration" is bullshit,
>
> So you're saying that it's impossible for anyone to have
> consideration for the lives of any other creatures
How many times do I have to tell you? That equivocation is busted.
Don't tell me you can't see that it's an equivocation. Please don't tell me
you're that dense.
dh
<P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:ocrbd51dpo83r29gl...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:48:12 +0100, "This is not a love song"
>> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:1jh7d59v7lur9u2jt...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:55:06 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
>>>>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do I need to explain
>>>>
>>>> So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying to
>>>> talk
>>>> about if anything,
>>>
>>>He knows ehat he's talking about. Just because you don't know what he's
>>>talking about then that would indicate that either he's not explaining
>>>himself very well
>>
>> He has never provided a single decent reason why a person
>> should feel that it's ethically superior to refuse to consider
>> the lives of other creatures than it is to consider them. Maybe
>> you can help him explain why you people think it's superior, but
>> I seriously doubt you can even make an attempt. I do however
>> challenge you to try, so TRY!!!:
>
>I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior.
Yet your love for "Dutch" will prevent you from admitting it
if you think those people are full of shit, as I certainly do.
dh
>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:25:18 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:01:49 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:14:29 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:55:06 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that
>>>>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do I need to explain
>>>>
>>>> So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying to talk
>>>>about if anything, or like in this case learn that you have no idea and in fact
>>>>there really is nothing for you to try to talk about. You wish anticonsideration
>>>>was superior to having consideration but it's not, and you're incapable of
>>>>making a decent attempt at pretending that it is.
>>>
>>>Anyone genuinely interested, if such people exist, either already know
>>>intuitively that The LOL and your dishonest, transparent, misnomer code
>>>word, "consideration" is bullshit,
>>
>> So you're saying that it's impossible for anyone to have
>>consideration for the lives of any other creatures, which is a
>>blatant and contemptible lie.
>
>How many times do I have to tell you? That equivocation is busted.
>
>Don't tell me you can't see that it's an equivocation.
It's not. You're lying repeatedly, and just because you've
told that same lie over a hundred times it's still every bit as
much a blatant lie now as it was when you told it to begin with,
and every time any misnomer advocate repeats that same lie.... It
will ALWAYS be a blatant lie every time any of you tell it.
Here's another challenge for you to continue failing entirely
and pathetically:
Try explain which creatures you are willing to admit any humans
are capable of considering the lives of if there are any, and why
you can admit for some creatures while you deny it for others.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:pegmd5dj825nnhopv...@4ax.com...
It is.
Consideration:
Meaning 1: Thinking about or pondering
Meaning 2: Altruism or generosity
Your use of the phrase "to have consideration" means 'to think about', but
you imply that it means generosity, i.e. withholding it implies selfishness.
Since withholding this "consideration" does no harm it cannot be the latter.
So either you are incredibly stupid or you are dishonest, quite possibly
both.
Your whole argument, such as it is, has come down to repeating this
blatantly dishonest rhetorical device.
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:q4gmd5tngojh88m03...@4ax.com...
Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The question
was,
dh
<P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Yet your love for "Dutch" will prevent you from admitting it
>>if you think those people are full of shit, as I certainly do.
>
>Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed.
LOL!!! I mean: What question do you think you're trying to
refer to, have you any idea at all?
>The question was,"I don't recall caliming that i thought it is
>ethically superior. Perhaps you can point out where I said that
>but I doubt it."
That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
the less.
dh
It is as selfish as it's possible for a person to get,
whether you are in favor or opposed to raising animals for food.
You of course appear to be opposed to it in spite of your
apparent lying to the contrary. If you really are in favor of
raising animals for food but are so purely selfish that you're
opposed to considering their lives as you pretend to be, then you
are even more contemptible than misnomer advocates since at least
they "think" they have good reason for the anticonsideration. An
actual meat consumer would have absolutely no reason for
anticonsideration other than pure inconsideration for every other
being, which of course may very well be your situation.
>Since withholding this "consideration" does no harm it cannot be the latter.
>So either you are incredibly stupid or you are dishonest, quite possibly
>both.
>
>Your whole argument, such as it is, has come down to repeating this
>blatantly dishonest rhetorical device.
I simply point out that anticonsideration is based purely on
selfishness, which it most obviously is. Maybe the fact that you
are completely absorbed by it--it IS your life--prevents you from
seeing it as it truly is but that's the way it is whether you're
aware of it, or honestly unaware.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:d8rud595qm7d4lnve...@4ax.com...
You didn't even attempt to refute the fact that your use of the word
"consideration" is an equivocation, you simply repeated the equivocation.
> You of course appear to be opposed to it in spite of your
> apparent lying to the contrary. If you really are in favor of
> raising animals for food but are so purely selfish that you're
> opposed to considering their lives as you pretend to be, then you
> are even more contemptible than misnomer advocates since at least
> they "think" they have good reason for the anticonsideration. An
> actual meat consumer would have absolutely no reason for
> anticonsideration other than pure inconsideration for every other
> being, which of course may very well be your situation.
>
>>Since withholding this "consideration" does no harm it cannot be the
>>latter.
>>So either you are incredibly stupid or you are dishonest, quite possibly
>>both.
>>
>>Your whole argument, such as it is, has come down to repeating this
>>blatantly dishonest rhetorical device.
>
> I simply point out that anticonsideration is based purely on
> selfishness, which it most obviously is. Maybe the fact that you
> are completely absorbed by it--it IS your life--prevents you from
> seeing it as it truly is but that's the way it is whether you're
> aware of it, or honestly unaware.
You simply repeated the equivocation again. You really don't get it, do you?
Dutch
> That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
> misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
> superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
> anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
> the less.
You offer no reason why anyone should give consideration to the lives of
livestock animals. The idea in fact has no discernable meaning. Giving
consideration to the lives of livestock animals does nothing.
There is a good argument for giving consideration to the *treatment* of
livestock animals on compassionate grounds.
You equivocate when you suggest that refusing to do the former implies
refusal to do the latter. Refusing to "give consideration to the lives of
livestock animals" does no harm, it does nothing except act as a declaration
of moral and intellectual integrity.
You clearly are either being dishonest or you are incredibly stupid, and
from your record I can only assume that will remain as such for the rest of
your life.
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:58rud55umu375odc1...@4ax.com...
LOL doesn't win arguments.
>I mean:
To troll
>What question do you think you're trying to
> refer to, have you any idea at all?
Yes:
"I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. Perhaps
you
can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
>
>>The question was,"I don't recall caliming that i thought it is
>>ethically superior. Perhaps you can point out where I said that
>>but I doubt it."
>
> That's not a question
Yes it is and you still haven't answered it.
This is not a love song
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:hbo2p5$pb5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> <dh@.> wrote
>> That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
>> misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
>> superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
>> anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
>> the less.
>
> You offer no reason why anyone should give consideration to the lives of
> livestock animals. The idea in fact has no discernable meaning. Giving
> consideration to the lives of livestock animals does nothing.
I for one do think that livestock should be given consideration. We feed off
livestock therefore we should offer it respect and make its life as happy as
possible. This is not intending to start an argument with you, but you
should know how i feel on the subject. DH is a poor advocaat for my side of
the argument. He does more harm than good.
>
> There is a good argument for giving consideration to the *treatment* of
> livestock animals on compassionate grounds.
That they are thinking, feeling creatures. yself i would feel conned if all
i had was 4 hooves, five stomaches and a feild full of cow shit to wander
in. I'd bet it gets nippy in the winter too.
Dutch
"This is not a love song" <P...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hbp0rv$to1$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:hbo2p5$pb5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
>>> misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
>>> superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
>>> anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
>>> the less.
>>
>> You offer no reason why anyone should give consideration to the lives of
>> livestock animals. The idea in fact has no discernable meaning. Giving
>> consideration to the lives of livestock animals does nothing.
>
> I for one do think that livestock should be given consideration. We feed
> off livestock therefore we should offer it respect and make its life as
> happy as possible. This is not intending to start an argument with you,
> but you should know how i feel on the subject. DH is a poor advocaat for
> my side of the argument. He does more harm than good.
You're talking about giving consideration to the way animals are treated,
the conditions we provide for them to live, alleviating their suffering.
That's not what he means.
"Considering the animals" is something else to him. In fuckwit speak it
means something like "consider what a good deal they get out of it". It's a
backhanded way of feeling like a do-gooder, a provider of life. It's a cheap
rationalization for being a meat eater. Imagine thinking to yourself what a
favor you did for that cow as you eat a burger,
dh
><dh@.> pointed out:
>
>> I simply point out that anticonsideration is based purely on
>> selfishness, which it most obviously is. Maybe the fact that you
>> are completely absorbed by it--it IS your life--prevents you from
>> seeing it as it truly is but that's the way it is whether you're
>> aware of it, or honestly unaware.
>
>You simply repeated the equivocation again. You really don't get it, do you?
Yes I do get it. When you say that consideration is not
consideration, you are telling a blatant lie. You repeat that
blatant lie over and over and over, because you feel that lie
somehow supports the misnomer.
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
>> misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
>> superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
>> anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
>> the less.
>
>You offer no reason why anyone should give consideration to the lives of
>livestock animals. The idea in fact has no discernable meaning. Giving
>consideration to the lives of livestock animals does nothing.
In contrast to that lie: It produces a much more realistic
interpretation of the situation than only considering the
animals' deaths like misnomer advocates want to restrict everyone
to.
>There is a good argument for giving consideration to the *treatment* of
>livestock animals on compassionate grounds.
There is good reason to consider their lives as well as their
deaths, and considering the quality of their lives is part of
doing that.
>You equivocate when you suggest that refusing to do the former implies
>refusal to do the latter. Refusing to "give consideration to the lives of
>livestock animals" does no harm, it does nothing except act as a declaration
>of moral and intellectual integrity.
>
>You clearly are either being dishonest or you are incredibly stupid, and
>from your record I can only assume that will remain as such for the rest of
>your life.
LOL! If you really believe a person is stupid for not
accepting idiotic restrictions that eliminstionists want to
impose on what we allow ourselves to take into consideration,
then you are certainly incredibly stupid. But then you have been
proving that consistently for years, so there's no reason to ever
expect you to change.
dh
>
>"This is not a love song" <P...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hbp0rv$to1$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:hbo2p5$pb5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
>>>> misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
>>>> superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
>>>> anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
>>>> the less.
>>>
>>> You offer no reason why anyone should give consideration to the lives of
>>> livestock animals. The idea in fact has no discernable meaning. Giving
>>> consideration to the lives of livestock animals does nothing.
>>
>> I for one do think that livestock should be given consideration. We feed
>> off livestock therefore we should offer it respect and make its life as
>> happy as possible. This is not intending to start an argument with you,
>> but you should know how i feel on the subject. DH is a poor advocaat for
>> my side of the argument. He does more harm than good.
>
>You're talking about giving consideration to the way animals are treated,
>the conditions we provide for them to live, alleviating their suffering.
>That's not what he means.
That's part of what I mean. Misnomer advocates only want us
to consider the animals deaths, as if it meat consumers only
contribute to the deaths of animals but don't in any way
contribute to lives of possitive value for them. That's horribly
dishonest, but not the least bit unusual for misnomer advocate.
Amusingly in contrast to meat consumers who deliberately DO
contribute to the lives of animals, misnomer advocates try to
only contribute to the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives
of livestock. They lie, they try to avoid contributing to lives,
and even more amusingly they want everyone else to think they're
superior for doing it. Notice "Dutch" wants to feel ethically
superior for REFUSING to consider the lives of livestock as well
as their deaths.
>"Considering the animals" is something else to him. In fuckwit speak it
>means something like "consider what a good deal they get out of it".
"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>It's a backhanded way of feeling like a do-gooder,
"We should feel good if animals are given good treatment." -
"Dutch"
>a provider of life.
"I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
>It's a cheap rationalization for being a meat eater.
"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>Imagine thinking to yourself what a
>favor you did for that cow as you eat a burger,
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our
lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
dh
<P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:hbo2p5$pb5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
>>> misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
>>> superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
>>> anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
>>> the less.
>>
>> You offer no reason why anyone should give consideration to the lives of
>> livestock animals. The idea in fact has no discernable meaning. Giving
>> consideration to the lives of livestock animals does nothing.
>
>I for one do think that livestock should be given consideration. We feed off
>livestock therefore we should offer it respect and make its life as happy as
>possible. This is not intending to start an argument with you, but you
>should know how i feel on the subject. DH is a poor advocaat for my side of
>the argument. He does more harm than good.
Misnomer advocates are opposed to considering the animals'
lives because doing so could lead a person to believe that
providing decent AW might be ethically equivalent or superior to
their elimination objective. What I promote is decent AW, which
works directly AGAINST the elimination objective. Those people
want to eliminate domestic animals, which is the opposite of
wanting to provide billions of them with decent lives of positive
value. That being the case, of course one of the main things they
must be opposed to is the possibility of people learning to
appreciate the significance of the animals' lives.
This is not a love song
Oh, I eat meat and I'm a hipocrite. I openly admit it. I neither have the
courage or strength to give up meat as i love the stuff. But I am in no
elusion. We murder animals to eat meat. We are not doing them any favours as
much as people might like to think we are. DH is a troll. whatever your
argument he will find a way to start a fight with you.
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:kf11e5p4vhgtskaca...@4ax.com...
Nice try and almost convincing but you're still a troll.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:0a11e5h8001hr6jr9...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:30:48 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> pointed out:
>>
>>> I simply point out that anticonsideration is based purely on
>>> selfishness, which it most obviously is. Maybe the fact that you
>>> are completely absorbed by it--it IS your life--prevents you from
>>> seeing it as it truly is but that's the way it is whether you're
>>> aware of it, or honestly unaware.
>>
>>You simply repeated the equivocation again. You really don't get it, do
>>you?
>
> Yes I do get it. When you say that consideration is not
> consideration, you are telling a blatant lie.
Please tell me you're not really this stupid.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:7c11e5laocq3jsi7n...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:43:31 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
>>> misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
>>> superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
>>> anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
>>> the less.
>>
>>You offer no reason why anyone should give consideration to the lives of
>>livestock animals. The idea in fact has no discernable meaning. Giving
>>consideration to the lives of livestock animals does nothing.
>
> In contrast to that lie: It produces a much more realistic
> interpretation of the situation than only considering the
> animals' deaths like misnomer advocates want to restrict everyone
> to.
The "situation"? There is no "situation", there is the act of raising
animals for food, and it is perfectly moral. You're just validating a weak
argument by assenting to it's premise.
>>There is a good argument for giving consideration to the *treatment* of
>>livestock animals on compassionate grounds.
>
> There is good reason to consider their lives as well as their
> deaths,
There is no reason to consider either, no point at all.
> and considering the quality of their lives is part of
> doing that.
It has nothing to do with either.
>
>>You equivocate when you suggest that refusing to do the former implies
>>refusal to do the latter. Refusing to "give consideration to the lives of
>>livestock animals" does no harm, it does nothing except act as a
>>declaration
>>of moral and intellectual integrity.
>>
>>You clearly are either being dishonest or you are incredibly stupid, and
>>from your record I can only assume that will remain as such for the rest
>>of
>>your life.
>
> LOL! If you really believe a person is stupid for not
> accepting idiotic restrictions that eliminstionists want to
> impose on what we allow ourselves to take into consideration,
> then you are certainly incredibly stupid. But then you have been
> proving that consistently for years, so there's no reason to ever
> expect you to change.
There's no reason to embrace the logic of the larder, it is cheap sophism.
Dutch
> The "situation"? There is no "situation", there is the act of raising
> animals for food, and it is perfectly moral. You're just validating a weak
> argument by assenting to it's premise.
I'll clarify this. When you use the premise, "They only want to consider
their deaths" [I also want to consider their lives] you are accepting the
implicit premise of AR, that the killing of an animal for food is inherently
wrong (considering their deaths). Then you attempt to justify it by
asserting that "At least they get to experience" life" (considering their
lives) That is your mistake, the original premise should never be accepted,
the fact that they experience life in no way can justify killing them.
Killing can never be justified that way. The correct argument is to reject
the premise immediately, not to get into a battle of who has the better
invalid argument.
dh
It would not help one animal on this planet if you never ate
another bite of any kind of meat, for one thing. For another,
many animals raised for food appear to have decent lives of
positive value. The vast majority of beef and dairy cattle,
broiler chickens, turkeys, and cage free laying hens all appear
to have decent lives of positive value. So do the parents of
broiler chickens and even the caged laying hens, because they are
all kept in open houses not in cages. You may or may not know or
care about any of that, but it's significant whether you know or
care anything about it or not. If that much means nothing to you,
then going into more detail would be useless.
>But I am in no
>elusion. We murder animals to eat meat.
They ONLY experience life because humans raise them to eat,
and as much as you would like to pretend their lives are
insignificant they are still the most important thing to the
animals. You're not going to persuade me to believe they
shouldn't be given as much or more consideration than their
deaths.
The only supposed "argument" I've encountered in all these
years that has anything to it at all is the argument that in some
cases it's conceivably possible--though in most cases extremely
unlikely--that if livestock are eliminated from a particular area
that an equal or greater number of wildlife will exist in the
area than would have if the livestock still occupied it. Though
that is conceivably possible the exact opposite has been true in
every example I've seen, since the livestock farms I've seen
cease operation have become business and residential areas
providing MUCH LESS opportunity for wildlife to exist. So their
"best" argument is still NOTHING since it's completely
unrealistic. I also point out that wildlife are far less welcome
in crop fields than they are in grazing areas, so even if an area
went from grazing cattle to growing veggies that would still
provide less opportunity for wildlife to thrive, not more.
>We are not doing them any favours as
>much as people might like to think we are.
You can't think about it realistically to determine whether
or not ANY of them have lives of positive value, much less defend
the idea that none of them do.
>DH is a troll. whatever your
>argument he will find a way to start a fight with you.
Each year billions of animals are raised for food, and to
think that none of them have decent lives of positive value is
very stupid and ignorant, amoung other things. To not care is
worse, to oppose consideration of the fact is worse than that,
and to lie and deny the fact is worst of all.
Maybe you can look at these photos and not see any animals
who you feel experienced lives of positive value, but I see some
that I believe did:
http://www.agrabilityproject.org/images/clip_image002_0015.jpg
http://www.karlschatz.com/yearofthegoat/images/skyland.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/2361808892_b1a8025730.jpg
http://www.quailhunt.net/images/Quail%20Farm2.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/04/10/egg.jpg
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/leofoo/windows/images/duckpond.jpg
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/Sheep.jpg
http://www.seldomseenfarm.co.uk/images/goose%20540-2.jpg
http://www.terrierman.com/cowoil.JPG
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.jpg
http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/326479/3451575/0/1175791262/RABBIT_FARM.jpg
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/mds_p7f11.JPG
http://www.drgobbler.com/images/turkeys.JPG
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02Jz3CK90Q2LI/610x.jpg
http://www.cohabnet.org/images/img_issue3.2_lrg.jpg
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/01/389523.gif
http://www.colleenpatrick.com/blog/uploaded_images/June-2007-13-782938.jpg
http://www.sprucedale.com/images/feedlot.jpg
http://www.saucierquail.com/farm4.jpg
http://www.spurlockboergoats.com/Images/herd.jpg
http://www.camprusk.com/grass/Feedlot3.JPG
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.jpg
http://www.deliciousorganics.com/images/BGlickFarm250.jpg
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/VAfeedlot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/sarahpayton/Grass-fedCows.jpg
http://bentleycellars.com/db2/00200/bentleycellars.com/_uimages/GoldSheepRanch.JPG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/20050415_feedlot.jpg
http://www.rabbitfur.org/photos/rabbitFarm/rabbit%20farm%20CAFT%20s777.jpg
http://img.tripatlas.com:8080/media/images/Hamhung_Goat_Farm.jpg
http://www.agralarm.com/images/400_Texas_Broilers.jpg
http://www.circlekquailfarm.com/200%20x%20134.JPG
http://www.moonridgefarm.co.uk/USERIMAGES/more%20quail.jpg
http://www.therunningduckfarm.com/images/fieldtripw.jpg
http://www.basscoast.vic.gov.au/files/670_dairyfarm.jpg
http://www.agriproducts.com.au/verve/_resources/sheep2_page.jpg
http://www.harveyquarterhorseranch.com/graphics/allhorses.jpg
http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/Asmawi%20M.%20Tahir.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/french/ev10000/ev10703.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040212/wd6.jpg
http://www.rabbitfur.org/photos/rabbitFarm/rabbit%20farm%20CAFT%20s778.jpg
http://www.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Susya_goat_farm_.jpg
http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/uploads/images/Case_Studies/EE/Lighting2.jpg
http://www.piercefarmwatch.org/images/blog/bellsurvivors.jpg
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/images/cows1.jpg
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/sheep_on_bare_dirt.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44105000/jpg/_44105757_bank416ap.jpg
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/kitchen/2008_08_15-MorrisBeef.jpg
http://www.harrys-stuff.com/china-university/renda-images/peking-duck.jpg
http://www.alcockhorseranch.com/images/horse.gif
http://www.boerdurhamgoatfarm.com/images/upload/fullsize/2008-3-25-goats-2-061.jpg
http://www.mountain-beef.com/images/sales.jpg
http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi36/images/chickens.jpeg
http://www.kingbirdfarm.com/images/KBF%20broilers%20hoop%20house.jpg
http://www.prairiespringsranch.com/images/13.jpg
http://www.countryliving.com/cm/countryliving/images/Geese-GARDEN0805-de.jpg
http://www.specialtytravel.com/operators/logos/18059.jpg
dh
<P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've understood and appreciated the difference between animal
welfare and the gross misnomer "animal rights" for over ten
years. Maybe you're beginning to understand that there is a
difference, or to appreciate it?
>but you're still a troll.
Yeah and so are you and everyone else so none of us have any
room to bitch about it, including you.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:7c11e5laocq3jsi7n...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:43:31 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> That's not a question you poor sad fool. If you agree with
>>>> misnomer advocates then you must believe anticonsideration is
>>>> superior. You also would be unable to give a good reason why
>>>> anyone should think it is, but you would have to think it is none
>>>> the less.
>>>
>>>You offer no reason why anyone should give consideration to the lives of
>>>livestock animals. The idea in fact has no discernable meaning. Giving
>>>consideration to the lives of livestock animals does nothing.
>>
>> In contrast to that lie: It produces a much more realistic
>> interpretation of the situation than only considering the
>> animals' deaths like misnomer advocates want to restrict everyone
>> to.
>
>The "situation"? There is no "situation",
That's a blatant lie.
>there is the act of raising
>animals for food,
Producing the situation that animals are being raised for
food which you just lied about.
>and it is perfectly moral. You're just validating a weak
>argument by assenting to it's premise.
I examine their complaint and find that in some/most cases
the animals benefit rather than experience a negative as a result
of the situation you keep lying about.
>>>There is a good argument for giving consideration to the *treatment* of
>>>livestock animals on compassionate grounds.
>>
>> There is good reason to consider their lives as well as their
>> deaths,
>
>There is no reason to consider either,
That's a blatant lie.
>no point at all.
We both know you know it's a lie:
"Since we cause these events to happen as a direct result of
feeding ourselves" - "Dutch"
>> and considering the quality of their lives is part of
>> doing that.
>
>It has nothing to do with either.
It has much to do with whether or not their lives should be
considered as crule TO THE ANIMALS.
>>>You equivocate when you suggest that refusing to do the former implies
>>>refusal to do the latter. Refusing to "give consideration to the lives of
>>>livestock animals" does no harm, it does nothing except act as a
>>>declaration
>>>of moral and intellectual integrity.
>>>
>>>You clearly are either being dishonest or you are incredibly stupid, and
>>>from your record I can only assume that will remain as such for the rest
>>>of
>>>your life.
>>
>> LOL! If you really believe a person is stupid for not
>> accepting idiotic restrictions that eliminstionists want to
>> impose on what we allow ourselves to take into consideration,
>> then you are certainly incredibly stupid. But then you have been
>> proving that consistently for years, so there's no reason to ever
>> expect you to change.
>
>There's no reason to embrace the logic of the larder
Considering what the animals get out of the situation is a
necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM
for people to raise them for food. You can't make the evaluation
apparently, because you refuse to consider all the things
necessary in order to do so.
dh
I've always said you think you get the most browny points by
refusing to consider the animals, and you prove me right
consistently. But what you have STILL failed to do is to suggest
how such lameness makes you in any way superior. It just makes
you lame and reveals the fact that you have NOTHING. If I didn't
know you're a misnomer advocate and believed you really were in
favor of decent AW, I believe I would have to consider you to be
the stupidest person I've ever encountered.
Dutch
>>There's no reason to embrace the logic of the larder
>
> Considering what the animals get out of the situation is a
> necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM
> for people to raise them for food.
It is not necessary and that is circular logic.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
YOU are arguing against AR by accepting its basic premise, and *I* am the
stupid one?
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:6i49e5l8ctu4uh85d...@4ax.com...
I've every room to bitch but I'm not bitching, rather pointing out the
obvious.
dh
<P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You have none.
>but I'm not bitching,
LOL! You certainly are a dishonest one.
>rather pointing out the obvious.
You're bitching at me, when your buddy "Dutch" is the
dishonest one you should be bitching at.
dh
I accept it when life is of negative value for the animals,
but not when it's of positive value. I can recognise and
appreciate different situations enough to accept it in some cases
and reject it in others, which is both a more realistic position
than you people have and also a freedom that you do not have.
>and *I* am the stupid one?
Of course that's always been my interpretation of it. A hint
to you that's the case is the countless times I've mentioned that
I can't figure out whether you are more deliberately dishonest,
or truly stupid enough to believe the things you give the
appearance of believing.
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>
>
>>>There's no reason to embrace the logic of the larder
>>
>> Considering what the animals get out of the situation is a
>> necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM
>> for people to raise them for food.
>
>It is not necessary
It is necessary.
>and that is circular logic.
It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
TO THE ANIMALS. It's not necessary in order to evaluate whether
or not you think it's somehow cruel TO YOU--which is all the
purity of your selfishness will allow you to think about--but it
is a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO
THEM.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:nu8ee5hbauq72tq9d...@4ax.com...
That makes no sense. Breeding animals as "livestock" is a decison/action
which occurs before the animal is ever born. The argument of AR is that we
should never do it, it's wrong, exploitive. Providing good living conditions
for livestock or not doing so is a totally separate issue, called "AW". It
happens after the fact.
You are accepting the basic premise of AR when you should be rejecting it,
you fool. The reason you are forced to resort to the circular sophistry of
the LoL is that you have fumbled the ball right off the snap.
> but not when it's of positive value. I can recognise and
> appreciate different situations enough to accept it in some cases
> and reject it in others, which is both a more realistic position
> than you people have and also a freedom that you do not have.
>
>>and *I* am the stupid one?
>
> Of course that's always been my interpretation of it. A hint
> to you that's the case is the countless times I've mentioned that
> I can't figure out whether you are more deliberately dishonest,
> or truly stupid enough to believe the things you give the
> appearance of believing.
The answer is, you are stuck believing something completely ridiculous so
you can't recognize common sense from that position.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:o49ee5pbpd8gm3otn...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:13:12 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>There's no reason to embrace the logic of the larder
>>>
>>> Considering what the animals get out of the situation is a
>>> necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO THEM
>>> for people to raise them for food.
>>
>>It is not necessary
>
> It is necessary.
Why?
>>and that is circular logic.
>
> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
> TO THE ANIMALS.
Of course to the animals, who else could it be cruel to?
It's not necessary in order to evaluate whether
> or not you think it's somehow cruel TO YOU
I've never said such a thing, your confusion only grows.
Moral judgments are about deciding if something is right. That implies right
"for you to do". Moral judgment necessarily involve *us*, animals are not
judged on that basis.
--which is all the
> purity of your selfishness will allow you to think about--but it
> is a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel TO
> THEM.
That's circular nonsense, if you didn't raise livestock there would be no
"them".
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:7u8ee59hi7nj9oh9d...@4ax.com...
I thought you said that i had no room to bitch!. Sounds like you're the
dishonest one but we already knew that.
LOL.
>
>>rather pointing out the obvious.
>
> You're bitching at me,
Nope. Just pointing out the obvious.
dh
I do in most cases. Not necessarily in the case of battery
hens in general though...I believe it might be better if animals
never live to be kept in such conditions. There are others, but
you can't relate to any so you now claim.
>you fool.
>
>The reason you are forced to resort to the circular sophistry of
>the LoL is that you have fumbled the ball right off the snap.
I'm aware that:
"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
which means that each situation must NECESSARILY be taken into
consideration before an evaluation can be made. LOL!!! You
parroted that idea you heard somewhere, but hilariously had no
idea what you were actually writing when you posted it here.
LOL!........and obviously you still don't.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:ttoge5ppc077864n4...@4ax.com...
I give up, you're too deeply hooked on the LoL to ever see what a sham it
is.
dh
Ah, so I was right. You never did understand it when you made
claims like that in the past. Do you even know where you got the
idea from in the first place, and why you ever presented it as if
you understood and agreed with it?
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5gqje5ptlq2ct0uiv...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:50:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:ttoge5ppc077864n4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:07:05 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are accepting the basic premise of AR when you should be rejecting
>>>>it,
>>>
>>> I do in most cases. Not necessarily in the case of battery
>>> hens in general though...I believe it might be better if animals
>>> never live to be kept in such conditions. There are others, but
>>> you can't relate to any so you now claim.
>>>
>>>>you fool.
>>>>
>>>>The reason you are forced to resort to the circular sophistry of
>>>>the LoL is that you have fumbled the ball right off the snap.
>>>
>>> I'm aware that:
>>>
>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>
>>> which means that each situation must NECESSARILY be taken into
>>> consideration before an evaluation can be made. LOL!!! You
>>> parroted that idea you heard somewhere, but hilariously had no
>>> idea what you were actually writing when you posted it here.
>>> LOL!........and obviously you still don't.
>>
>>I give up, you're too deeply hooked on the LoL to ever see what a sham it
>>is.
>
> Ah, so I was right.
Nope, Dutch was.
HTH
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:5gqje5ptlq2ct0uiv...@4ax.com...
It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the Logic
of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, who
provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or
suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's owner
any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life. You see
everything through the same prism, and you're getting worse all the time.
dh
Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend:
Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either
like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is
consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't
get it.
Dutch
>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the
>>Logic
>>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, who
>>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or
>>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's
>>owner
>>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
>
> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend:
> Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either
> like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is
> consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't
> get it.
Consideration is NOT consideration, there are different meanings for the
word.
It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish to
withhold "consideration" (thinking).
You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either deliberately
and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no
scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that God
is an unproven concept does not require faith, beyond a much different and
more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is essentially
as science and our perceptions make it appear.
Tim McGaughy
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:q4gmd5tngojh88m03...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:37:19 +0100, "This is not a love song"
>> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message news:ocrbd51dpo83r29gl...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:48:12 +0100, "This is not a love song"
>>>> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration
>>>>>>> Why do I need to explain
>>>>>> So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> talk
>>>>>> about if anything,
>>>>> He knows ehat he's talking about. Just because you don't know what he's
>>>>> talking about then that would indicate that either he's not explaining
>>>>> himself very well
>>>> He has never provided a single decent reason why a person
>>>> should feel that it's ethically superior to refuse to consider
>>>> the lives of other creatures than it is to consider them. Maybe
>>>> you can help him explain why you people think it's superior, but
>>>> I seriously doubt you can even make an attempt. I do however
>>>> challenge you to try, so TRY!!!:
>>> I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior.
>> Yet your love for "Dutch"
>
> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The question
> was,
> "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. Perhaps
> you
> can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
Are you posting drunk?
This is not a love song
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:1bCdnREMCIHtKWzX...@posted.toastnet...
Nope, I post messages. Maybe you should leave off the crack.
Dutch
"This is not a love song" <P...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcsdp0$mci$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The
>>> question was,
>>> "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior.
>>> Perhaps you
>>> can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
>>
>> Are you posting drunk?
>
> Nope, I post messages. Maybe you should leave off the crack.
He's just trying to be clever to hide that fact that he doesn't know what
you're talking about >:)
This is not a love song
A common occurance on usenet. :) Still the guy's got to have a hobby.
>
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>
>>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the
>>>Logic
>>>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, who
>>>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or
>>>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's
>>>owner
>>>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
>>
>> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend:
>> Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either
>> like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is
>> consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't
>> get it.
>
>Consideration is NOT consideration,
That's a blatant lie.
>there are different meanings for the
>word.
>
>It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish to
>withhold "consideration" (thinking).
>
>You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either deliberately
>and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
>
>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no
>scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that God
>is an unproven concept does not require faith,
In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that
God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person
does or does not believe it.
>beyond a much different and
>more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is essentially
>as science and our perceptions make it appear.
Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that
faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not
consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:t0b6f5pqs32r1fo6f...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:50:26 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the
>>>>Logic
>>>>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner,
>>>>who
>>>>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or
>>>>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's
>>>>owner
>>>>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
>>>
>>> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend:
>>> Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either
>>> like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is
>>> consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't
>>> get it.
>>
>>Consideration is NOT consideration,
>
> That's a blatant lie.
>
>>there are different meanings for the
>>word.
>>
>>It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish to
>>withhold "consideration" (thinking).
>>
>>You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either
>>deliberately
>>and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
Which is it?
>>
>>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no
>>scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that God
>>is an unproven concept does not require faith,
>
> In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that
> God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person
> does or does not believe it.
>
>>beyond a much different and
>>more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is
>>essentially
>>as science and our perceptions make it appear.
>
> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that
> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not
> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
You're a retard.
Dutch
>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not
>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>
> You're a retard.
No offense to self-respecting retards..
Dutch
>>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no
>>scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that God
>>is an unproven concept does not require faith,
>
> In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that
> God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person
> does or does not believe it.
You're too stupid to live. Believing in unproven concepts is faith, not
believing in unproven concepts is just rationality.
This is not a love song
"Retard" means slow, that is that retards eventually get it. dh doesn't
beleive that bull he's spouting. He's a troll with the intent of offending.
So he will never get your arguments. Retards are usually decent people.
Trolls have no such luxury.
Dutch
He's a rare combination, a retard troll.
This is not a love song
That's not rare. :)
>
>
dh
<P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:o5KIm.1975$X01...@newsfe07.iad...
>>
>> <dh@.> pointed out
>>
>>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that
>>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not
>>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>>
>> You're a retard.
>
>"Retard" means slow, that is that retards eventually get it. dh doesn't
>beleive that bull he's spouting.
I believe faith is faith, that consideration is
consideration, and that your buddy is lying when he says they're
not. I also believe he lies A LOT!!!
>He's a troll with the intent of offending.
People lie to and sometimes about me, I point it out to them,
and they get offended. LOL! I imagine when you steal from people
and they suspect that you did it, you get offended then too.
This is not a love song
<dh@.> wrote in message news:9qnlf5hbvgn6pg0qo...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:24:08 -0000, "This is not a love song"
> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>>news:o5KIm.1975$X01...@newsfe07.iad...
>>>
>>> <dh@.> pointed out
>>>
>>>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that
>>>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not
>>>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>>>
>>> You're a retard.
>>
>>"Retard" means slow, that is that retards eventually get it. dh doesn't
>>beleive that bull he's spouting.
>
> I believe faith is faith, that consideration is
> consideration,
Like I beleive you are a troll and that I consider that you are a troll.
>and that your buddy is lying
Conjecture
>>He's a troll with the intent of offending.
>
> People lie to and sometimes about me,
You lie about you too especially when you try to make us beleive that your
intention here is anything other than to troll.
Tim McGaughy
No, I'm just wondering why every other word is incorrectly spelled.
Tim McGaughy
You don't think responding to yourself is a bit retarded?
Dutch
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
Who cares about spelling? What about the topic under discussion? Not the
"Subject:", that hasn't been the topic of discussion for at least a month or
two.
This is not a love song
Predictable, totally predictable. A sad response on you part.
Dutch
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
Not nearly as retarded as your asinine approach to the subject of
specieisism which you stumbled into and are floundering around in like a
brain damaged donkey.