Re: interesting exchange of views
dh
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
Torture would be to restrain an animal and inflict severe pain on
it against its will, with no way for it to escape. That's a
completely different thing, but it's no suprise to see a misnomer
advocate contemptibly dishonestly trying to pretend it's the same
thing. It's disgusting really, the supposedly ethical dishonesty
which is pretty much all we ever get from eliminationists.
If done by the rules I believe cock fighting is no worse than
raising chickens for food. It involves letting two grown male
birds willingly try to kill each other and fight for their own
lives as long as both birds want to do so, and if one decides he
doesn't want to fight any more the fight is over. In contrast to
that the chickens we raise for food are hung by their feet at
6-10 weeks of age and have their throats cut. They and their
parents live much shorter periods of time than game chickens
usually do.
Here's a quote from the misnomer position:
_________________________________________________________
Gary: . . . I think we need to think differently about the way we
deal with animals and I believe the revolution has to be one of
the heart and it has to be an ethical revolution. But if I'm
torturing an animal, if I like torturing animals but I'm
otherwise a nice guy - I mean your argument is: my torturing
animals is only a problem if it's going to lead me to be a nasty
person otherwise. But as long as I'm not a nasty person
otherwise, and there are plenty of people in this world who do
all sorts of horrible things to animals but yet most people don't
regard them as horrible people. So on your view, there's simply
no - the moral obligation is non-existent, there is nothing
wrong, as long as people are nice people otherwise to other
humans, if they torture animals and they get a charge out of
doing that, if they like dog fighting, they like cock fighting,
they like all sorts of things like that, then that's just fine,
that's fine for them to do. That's your position, is it not?
���������������������������������������������������������
Dog fighting is completely different due to the differences
between chickens and dogs. Misnomer advocates can not appreciate
such things...they can't imagine how it could be okay to raise
chickens for fighting but not dogs. That's because they don't
have the basic consideration required in order to consider things
from the animals' positions. People like "Gary" could never
consider the animals themselves to the point that they even begin
to get a clue about reality. To people like "Gary" and Rupert it
is always wrong to raise chickens to fight even though the cocks
do it willingly, all of them have much longer lives than broiler
chickens, and many/most of them have decent lives of positive
value. They can't appreciate such things--and much much
more--because ALL they care about is themselves and that THEY are
disturbed by the fact that humans fight chickens, eat meat, drink
milk, eat eggs, etc... Misnomer advocates, better known as
eliminationists, have no consideration for the lives of
livestock. None. Though anyone else can, eliminationists
obviously can not afford to because doing so works against their
elimination objective. Trying to do so would result in them
experiencing cognitive dissonance, which is a problem that only
eliminationists have with it, afawk.
Rupert
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:08:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>
> It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
If you look the discussion over you will see that Gary Francione does
not in fact refer to these practices as torture, but he does refer to
them as horrible things, which would probably be fairly widely agreed
upon, not that that in itself proves anything much.
If you want to condemn what Gary Francione says in such strongly
worded terms then you should probably take care to accurately
characterise what he says.
> Torture would be to restrain an animal and inflict severe pain on
> it against its will, with no way for it to escape. That's a
> completely different thing, but it's no suprise to see a misnomer
> advocate contemptibly dishonestly trying to pretend it's the same
> thing. It's disgusting really, the supposedly ethical dishonesty
> which is pretty much all we ever get from eliminationists.
>
You're accusing someone of dishonesty in very strong terms for a claim
that he did not actually make. Not a very good look, really.
> If done by the rules I believe cock fighting is no worse than
> raising chickens for food.
Well, obviously I agree with you on that point but don't consider it
to be any defence of the practice.
You do not offer evidence for this remark.
> That's because they don't
> have the basic consideration required in order to consider things
> from the animals' positions.
Imagining what it would be like for the animal, you mean?
It's really most implausible that people like Gary Francione make
*less* effort to empathise with animals than people like you. You
could try to argue that they have it wrong about what it's like for
the animals, but you have offered no evidence...
> People like "Gary" could never
> consider the animals themselves to the point that they even begin
> to get a clue about reality.
You're someone who has a clue about reality, are you? :)
> To people like "Gary" and Rupert it
> is always wrong to raise chickens to fight even though the cocks
> do it willingly, all of them have much longer lives than broiler
> chickens, and many/most of them have decent lives of positive
> value. They can't appreciate such things--and much much
> more--
It has been explained to you many, many, MANY times we these
considerations are not the trump card that you claim they are. You
really gain nothing by endlessly repeating that your opponents have
"no appreciation" for these considerations.
> because ALL they care about is themselves
That is a totally absurd statement.
> and that THEY are
> disturbed by the fact that humans fight chickens, eat meat, drink
> milk, eat eggs, etc... Misnomer advocates, better known as
> eliminationists, have no consideration for the lives of
> livestock. None.
No, what you mean it, they along with just about all of humanity don't
think of it as the trump card that you do, and you haven't done a
terribly good job of arguing for your point of view.
> Though anyone else can, eliminationists
> obviously can not afford to because doing so works against their
> elimination objective. Trying to do so would result in them
> experiencing cognitive dissonance, which is a problem that only
> eliminationists have with it, afawk.
Anyone *can* take into account the considerations you point to and
plenty of people *do*, including those you call "eliminationists", but
hardly anyone thinks of it as the decisive trump card that you do, and
you have offered no especially good *reasons* for your point of view.
The deficiencies in your argument have been explained countless times.
It is absurd to claim that any attempt to consider your argument would
lead to cognitive dissonance, it is just that most people don't buy it
and those who have engaged with you here have offered plenty of
*reasons* for their rejection of your stance which you have not
engaged with.
You are not making any *argument* here, just a statement of your views
and a bunch of ad hominem smears.
Cheers.
dh
<rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 2, 3:17�am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:08:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>
>> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf
>>
>> � � It's a lowdown slimy misnomer hugger sort of trick to refer
>> to dog fighting and cock fighting as torturing animals, when in
>> fact the animals can quit and end it any time they want to.
>
>If you look the discussion over you will see that Gary Francione does
>not in fact refer to these practices as torture,
"if they torture animals and they get a charge out of
doing that, if they like dog fighting, they like cock fighting,
they like all sorts of things like that" - Gary
>but he does refer to
>them as horrible things, which would probably be fairly widely agreed
>upon, not that that in itself proves anything much.
>
>If you want to condemn what Gary Francione says in such strongly
>worded terms then you should probably take care to accurately
>characterise what he says.
He deliberately referred to dog fighting and cock fighting in
a way that suggests they are torture, and if you want to wiggle
him out of the dishonesty it appears pretty obvious it's a trick
you people use and are familiar with trying to get away with.
>> Torture would be to restrain an animal and inflict severe pain on
>> it against its will, with no way for it to escape. That's a
>> completely different thing, but it's no suprise to see a misnomer
>> advocate contemptibly dishonestly trying to pretend it's the same
>> thing. It's disgusting really, the supposedly ethical dishonesty
>> which is pretty much all we ever get from eliminationists.
>>
>
>You're accusing someone of dishonesty in very strong terms for a claim
>that he did not actually make. Not a very good look, really.
If you admittedly state that cockfighting and dogfighting are
not forms of torture then at least you will be showing some
honesty, but I doubt you could bring yourself to do it.
>> � � If done by the rules I believe cock fighting is no worse than
>> raising chickens for food.
>
>Well, obviously I agree with you on that point
It's not obvious that you agree and it would surprise me
quite a lot if you actually do.
>but don't consider it to be any defence of the practice.
Because you think it's better to let hawks and foxes kill
quail and rabbits than it is for humans to raise animals for
food, even when those animals are provided with lives of positive
value and regrdless of the value of life for the wildlife
....regardless of the value of life entirely for all animals
concerned, in fact.
Are you trying to create the impression that some misnomer
advocates condone cockfighting but are opposed to dogfighting? If
so then YOU should present evidence of that and I would LOVE to
see it.
>> That's because they don't
>> have the basic consideration required in order to consider things
>> from the animals' positions.
>
>Imagining what it would be like for the animal, you mean?
Right.
>It's really most implausible that people like Gary Francione make
>*less* effort to empathise with animals than people like you. You
>could try to argue that they have it wrong about what it's like for
>the animals,
Because they don't really try. Remember that for nine or ten
damned years I have been DELIBERATELY TRYING in quite a focused
way to encourage people to CONSIDER THE ANIMALS. Did you forget
that? Or didn't you notice? Have you not noticed that that
particular thing is exactly what Goo and "Dutch" have been
opposing, and I've been pointing out they oppose it because it
works AGAINST the misnomer? Francione doesn't do it either for
the same reason. If he did, he would learn that some livestock
animals DO have lives of positive value, would factor that into
his thinking, and would favor more of an AW position than an
elimination position. So would you, which is why Goo and co. came
down so hard on you when you appeared to drift toward AW for a
second. Remember that they attacked you for it, while I
encouraged you to move on with it? No? You don't remember any of
that?
>but you have offered no evidence...
Game hens don't go to the pit, so you have no argument there.
They usually live a lot longer than commercial laying hens, who
live longer than broiler chickens, so you have no argument there.
The young ones are usually raised by a hen and get to
experience all the good things of being a baby chicken like the
comfort of their mother covering them, and interaction with their
siblings so you have no argument there. When possible they are
usually let run free, or at least in a large fenced area during
their younger days so they get to experience that too, and have
it a lot better than broiler chickens. The pullets can run free
even after they become hens, so they can go for years depending
on conditions and when their owner wants to start breeding them.
The stags can run for about 5-6 months or so until they start to
"come to themselves", meaning become game when they can no longer
get along with other adult male birds. When they start to turn
they need to be penned, but still they get a lot more time
running free than broiler chickens get for an entire life, and
then many game cocks go on to be brood cocks if they do well in
the pit and live for 10+ years, and of course so do a lot of the
hens.
The cocks want to kill another rooster more than anything
else. Whether that is deliberately bred into them or stayed with
them from the Jungle Fowl it's still the way they are regardless.
To disregard their instincts simply because they were or may have
been deliberately developed by humans is certainly "*less* effort
to empathise with animals" than I make or anyone I've ever met
who raises game chickens makes. The cocks WANT to kill another
cock, and they can leave the fight at any time if they decide to.
I have no doubt that if they could be given the option they would
rather fight and try to kill another cock than be hung by their
feet and have their throats cut. They also fight for the very
existence of their hens and offspring which they don't know, but
it's a reality that we know none the less and if they did know it
would no doubt be as or more significant to them than it is to
humans who take such things into consideration.
>> People like "Gary" could never
>> consider the animals themselves to the point that they even begin
>> to get a clue about reality.
>
>You're someone who has a clue about reality, are you? :)
I can consider things you can't. I can consider that MAY BE
if the birds knew the truth about everything they might think
it's horrible and wish they were never born. But since they
appear to enjoy life in general, they spend a VERY SMALL portion
of their lives in the pit, and they usually appear to be okay
with it when they're in the pit even when they are dying, I can
consider that it might be the other way too. They might very well
consider you misnomer advocates to be their worst enemies...worse
than their owners, worse than hawks and foxes, and weasles and
snakes, and disease, and parasites, and even the other cocks they
fight with and kill, because you people are the only thing that
is deliberately trying to wipe them out entirely and for
absolutely no gain to yourselves.
>> To people like "Gary" and Rupert it
>> is always wrong to raise chickens to fight even though the cocks
>> do it willingly, all of them have much longer lives than broiler
>> chickens, and many/most of them have decent lives of positive
>> value. They can't appreciate such things--and much much
>> more--
>
>It has been explained to you many, many, MANY times we these
>considerations are not the trump card that you claim they are. You
>really gain nothing by endlessly repeating that your opponents have
>"no appreciation" for these considerations.
Since I consider them to be VERY SIGNIFICANT considerations,
and you people are incapable of them, it's one of the things that
shows how unqualified you are to even TRY to think about the
details of such things. Since you are unqualified to think about
the details, you are unqualified to make any respectable claims
about what should be acceptable and what should not because
you're obviously in no position to make any such distinction.
>> because ALL they care about is themselves
>
>That is a totally absurd statement.
It may actually seem untrue to you, but it's certainly the
truth none the less. Your aversion to encourage life for cage
free hens even though deep inside you may kinda' sorta' want to
maybe, is an example that possibly could help you realise the
truth IF you would take the time to think it all the way through
to the point that you can realise it really doesn't have anything
to do with the hens...it has to do with you being disturbed by
people raising them for whatever your own particular reasons are.
IF again you would take the time to find some livestock you feel
have lives of positive value, and learn to appreciate them for
the animals, THEN you could finally for the first time in your
life maybe BEGIN to think about the animals as well as yourself.
As long as you refuse, you just can't and won't. I ask you to
please at least think it through to the point that you
understand the truth of that, even if you decide to continue
refusing to consider the animals after you have done so.
>> and that THEY are
>> disturbed by the fact that humans fight chickens, eat meat, drink
>> milk, eat eggs, etc... Misnomer advocates, better known as
>> eliminationists, have no consideration for the lives of
>> livestock. None.
>
>No, what you mean it, they along with just about all of humanity don't
>think of it as the trump card that you do, and you haven't done a
>terribly good job of arguing for your point of view.
Try to keep in mind that by human nature you have a mental
self-defence in place which opposes thinking about things that
conflict entirely with what you have been putting your faith in
for years and years. It's called cognitive dissonance, and I feel
sure I've pointed it out to you before and even suggested
specific ways you might be able to get over it...like by asking
someone you respect instead of just hearing it from me....like
one of your professors or something. But you don't want to get
over it. It's a natural human tendancy. I can't get you over it.
Only you possibly COULD. If you ever do, I believe you would
learn to have much more appreciation for things you now have none
for, and the world though still with plenty of problems could
appear to be a much better place than you imagine it to be now.
But learning to appreciate lives of positive value for livestock
works against what you either want to believe, or have just grown
comfortable believing. You would have to overcome it yourself,
but someone you respect could probably help you greatly in doing
so IF you would let them.
>> Though anyone else can, eliminationists
>> obviously can not afford to because doing so works against their
>> elimination objective. Trying to do so would result in them
>> experiencing cognitive dissonance, which is a problem that only
>> eliminationists have with it, afawk.
>
>Anyone *can* take into account the considerations you point to and
>plenty of people *do*, including those you call "eliminationists", but
>hardly anyone thinks of it as the decisive trump card that you do, and
>you have offered no especially good *reasons* for your point of view.
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
>The deficiencies in your argument have been explained countless times.
In contrast to that: No one has ever given a single good
reason for refusing to consider the animals when evaluating
whether or not something is cruel TO THEM.
>It is absurd to claim that any attempt to consider your argument would
>lead to cognitive dissonance,
LOL! It OBVIOUSLY does. It's a classic example that should be
in every text book about the subject. Appreciating lives of
positive value for livestock works directly AGAINST the objective
to eliminate those same animals, making that a basic and text
book example of cognitive dissonance, and how (and why?) it
works. Good Lord man if nothing else at least try to understand
that much, for your own sake as well as anyone else you discuss
it with.
>it is just that most people don't buy it
>and those who have engaged with you here have offered plenty of
>*reasons* for their rejection of your stance which you have not
>engaged with.
They have lied and said consideration is not consideration,
but that is ALL. I know they're lying, they only have one lie to
tell and I know it's a lie, so there it is.
>You are not making any *argument* here, just a statement of your views
>and a bunch of ad hominem smears.
>
>Cheers.
Well now that you mention that you people should be PROUD of
your anticonsideration approach and proudly trying to defend why
you think it's superior to having the consideration you've been
opposing and shouldn't even consider it to be a smear when I
point it out. Instead you act like you want people to think you
DO have the very consideration that you're trying to oppose. Is
it possible to get much more dishonest than that? If you think it
through honestly you'll probably find that it's not, and that is
the position you are in. As always I encourage you to move
on...to accept that you are in such a position and rise above it,
and to get someone you respect to try to help you do it. I also
encourage you to go look at some livestock who you think might
have lives of positive value and observe them while trying to
think what it might be like to be them, until you can get some
sort of appreciation for it. Here are more pics you can try doing
it with too...if you can learn to appreciate ANY of them it could
be the start of a better and richer life for you, and better for
the people who have to deal with you too I imagine. I don't know
what it would be like for you, but for other people and myself it
would be like you got over a mental illness...or at least began
your trip down the road to improvement:
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.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.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.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.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.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.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.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.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
Dutch
On Dec 2, 3:17 am, dh@. wrote:
> If done by the rules I believe cock fighting is no worse than
> raising chickens for food.
Well, obviously I agree with you on that point but don't consider it
to be any defence of the practice.
------------
I'm surprised you would say that. That's like saying that there is no
difference between pitting dogs against one another in fights to the death
for entertainment and having them face danger aiding in search and rescue
work. One is far more defensible than the other.
dh
LOL. Well, really it's pretty sad that your pathetic brain
"works" that way, but as always you're incapable of thinking
about the animals and can only think about YOURSELF. If you cared
about the animals you would have been more honest and realistic
and said something like: That's like saying that there is no
difference between pitting dogs against one another in fights to
the death for entertainment and hanging them by their feet and
slitting their throats.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:b0rfh5d6rishno4mg...@4ax.com...
You forgot to include the reason why you do it, THAT is a primary component
of the equation.
In your example what is the reason you are killing the dogs and why are you
choosing to do it in that manner?
dh
In order to make it similar to the difference between
cockfighting and slaughtering broilers of course, since that's
what we're actually discussing. Even you should have been able to
figure that one out.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:hnssh5tih09c0a1id...@4ax.com...
You misunderstood the question, I mean *within the analogy* you presented,
the killing of dogs by hanging by the feet and slitting their throats, WHY
are you doing it? You can't judge an action without at least that much
context.
It is done by chicken farmers because it's a reasonably efficient and humane
way to process chickens for food. Why are you doing to the dogs? Do you have
a supportable moral rationale for it, or is it like animal combat, you're
doing it to satisfy some blood lust on your part?
dh
It doesn't make any difference why in regards to which is
crueler TO THE ANIMALS. The purity of your selfishness prevents
you from being able to comprehend that, as I've pointed out for
you countless times. You think I'm just being insulting because
you can't recognise the truth of the fact even in a crystal clear
example like this one right here. The purity of your selfishness
is also what prevents you from recognising itself btw, so your
very nature works against your attempts to try to pretend what
you pretend to be, and possibly really wish that you could
become.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:v3qvh5199pq01sbeo...@4ax.com...
It makes a difference in regards to whether or not it is ethical, which is
the theme of this newsgroup.
If I knock you out and slit open your chest the critical question is, am I a
heart surgeon trying to save your life or an immoral monster bent on
stealing your organs and selling them? In other words, WHY I am doing it is
EVERYTHING.
> The purity of your selfishness prevents <snip>
The purity of your dishonesty and your complete lack of moral balance
prevents you from being a moral person, someone who eschews animal combat
sports and cheesy sophistry to justify raising livestock.
The fact that you embody a complete and utter lack of moral sense is the
reason I continue to respond to you, despite the fact that you are a
hopeless idiot.
dh
LOL!!! The purity of your selfishness prevents you from
considering the animals' position, and restricts you AS ALWAYS to
only being able to consider whether or not you think it's cruel
to yourself. You really are pathetic.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:g7k2i5d28hbonntje...@4ax.com...
When did you stop caring if your argument is right and only that you get the
last word?
Subconsciously you have realized that you're lost, consciously you can't
accept it.
If I knock you out and slit open your chest the critical question is, am I a
heart surgeon trying to save your life or an immoral monster bent on
stealing your organs and selling them? In other words, WHY I am doing it is
EVERYTHING.
Why are you ignoring the WHY, the most important factor in determining if an
act if ethical?
Why?
dh
to prevent him from being able to comprehend:
><dh@.> continued to explain:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, the purity of "Dutch's" selfishness would
>>not allow him to consider the animals:
>>
>>><dh@.> pointed out:
>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, "Dutch" wondered in bewilderment:
>>>>
>>>>>*within the analogy* you
>>>>>presented,
>>>>>the killing of dogs by hanging by the feet and slitting their throats,
>>>>>WHY
>>>>>are you doing it?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't make any difference why in regards to which is
>>>> crueler TO THE ANIMALS.
>>>
>>>It makes a difference in regards to whether or not it is ethical
>>
>> LOL!!! The purity of your selfishness prevents you from
>> considering the animals' position, and restricts you AS ALWAYS to
>> only being able to consider whether or not you think it's cruel
>> to yourself. You really are pathetic.
. . .
>
>Why are you ignoring the WHY
Because the dogs don't care why, and whether or not it's
cruel TO THEM is what is in question regardless of you
self-centered attempted browny point grubbing "why". You really
are too purely selfish to be able to comprehend. You may honestly
believe I'm just insulting you with no reason, but the truth is
that I'm pointing out a very significant aspect of YOUR LIFE to
you. The fact that the fact happens to be insulting to you is not
in any way my fault. And if that fact is insulting to you, the
YOU should CHANGE so it no longer does apply to you, but you
can't change because your selfishness is too pure to allow it.
You said so yourself that considering other beings makes you feel
"dirty". The reason for that is the pureness of your selfishness
makes you feel as though you're cheating yourself any time you
have even the slightest consideration for any other being besides
yourself. In this particular case you can't even get that far,
but can litterally consider nothing but your own imaginary browny
points...well....that is ALWAYS the case with you.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:hlfai59424riiri17...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009,the purity of "Dutch's" selfishness continued
> to prevent him from being able to comprehend:
>
>><dh@.> continued to explain:
>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, the purity of "Dutch's" selfishness would
>>>not allow him to consider the animals:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> pointed out:
>
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, "Dutch" wondered in bewilderment:
>>>>>
>>>>>>*within the analogy* you
>>>>>>presented,
>>>>>>the killing of dogs by hanging by the feet and slitting their throats,
>>>>>>WHY
>>>>>>are you doing it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't make any difference why in regards to which is
>>>>> crueler TO THE ANIMALS.
>>>>
>>>>It makes a difference in regards to whether or not it is ethical
>>>
>>> LOL!!! The purity of your selfishness prevents you from
>>> considering the animals' position, and restricts you AS ALWAYS to
>>> only being able to consider whether or not you think it's cruel
>>> to yourself. You really are pathetic.
> . . .
>>
>>Why are you ignoring the WHY
>
> Because the dogs don't care why, and whether or not it's
> cruel TO THEM is what is in question regardless
The word "cruel" implies a moral judgment describing a human act, the fact
that it causes another being to suffer is just one aspect of it, but the
primary component is the reason behind it. If you poke your dog with needles
because it gives you sexual pleasure or make him fight because it makes you
money that is cruelty, if you do it because he needs medication or
acupuncture then it is not. It is completely irrelevant what "the dogs know"
you utter moron, there is no cruelty or morality in the animal world. I hope
somebody somewhere is able to benefit from these descriptions of your
complete lack of moral comprehension because you surely are hopelessly lost.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009,the purity of "Dutch's" selfishness continued
> to prevent him from being able to comprehend:
>
>> <dh@.> continued to explain:
>>
>>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, the purity of "Dutch's" selfishness would
>>> not allow him to consider the animals:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> pointed out:
>
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, "Dutch" wondered in bewilderment:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *within the analogy* you
>>>>>> presented,
>>>>>> the killing of dogs by hanging by the feet and slitting their throats,
>>>>>> WHY
>>>>>> are you doing it?
>>>>> It doesn't make any difference why in regards to which is
>>>>> crueler TO THE ANIMALS.
>>>> It makes a difference in regards to whether or not it is ethical
>>> LOL!!! The purity of your selfishness prevents you from
>>> considering the animals' position, and restricts you AS ALWAYS to
>>> only being able to consider whether or not you think it's cruel
>>> to yourself. You really are pathetic.
> . . .
>> Why are you ignoring the WHY
>
> Because the dogs don't care why,
The livestock don't care that they came into existence. They don't even
know about an abstraction like "existence". If they never existed,
"they" wouldn't be any worse off, because there would be no "they".