On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:39:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote> Veg*ns and people who have faith in the gross mi$nomer
>>>>>> "animal rights"
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not a misnomer. It's often misguided, maybe, but there is no
>>>>>misnomer.
>>>>>To call it a misnomer is to suggest that their vision of a world without
>>>>>livestock somehow violates some animal rights or causes harm or loss to
>>>>>animals, and that is completely false.
>>>>
>>>> No, what it suggests is that bringing about the elimination
>>>> of domestic animals is completely different than it would be to
>>>> provide them with rights, and we know it. Since the objective is
>>>> completely different than what the name suggests:
>>>
>>>It's not different at all, everyone knows what the AR movement wants. They
>>>want *no livestock to be born*, NOT livestock eliminated.
>>
>> They certainly do want them eliminated.
>
>THEY want that they never exist in the first place, YOU want them
>"eliminated", i.e. killed,

You need to explain why we should consider that ethically
superior to providing livestock with decent lives.

>so you can eat them.
>
>What THEY want harms no animal.

Vegans contribute to the majority of the same animal deaths
that most people do. All they avoid are things that provide life
and death for livestock.

>What WE want kills animals, not to mention
>causes many to suffer.
>
>You are not establishing any moral high ground here nitwit.
>
>> Stop lying. But then
>> again I guess if you were to stop lying, you couldn't respond at
>> all.
>
>What I just said was the truth.

No you lied like you always do, since animals are killed in
crop production, etc....

>>>Stop being so
>>>****ing stupid.
>>>
>>>You know you are such a ****ing hypocrite. YOU want these animals
>>>eliminated. You want them prodded up ramps, bolted throught the head, hung
>>>by the legs, gutted and cut up into pieces so you can eat them. You have a
>>>lot of nerve criticizing someone who doesn't want to see animals born
>>
>> · Because there are so many different situations
>> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>> cruelty or abuse at all.
>>
>> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
>> grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
>> confined to such a degree that they appear to have
>> terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
>> groups of animals in the same way.
>> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
>> producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
>> the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
>> battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
>> lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
>> to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
>> there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
>> groups in the same way. ·
>
>I agree with part of that, but it is all beside the point, you still can't
>criticize vegetarians for wishing that these animals never exist in the
>first place, it is not a "misnomer"

Suggesting that what misnomer addicts want would provide
livestock with rights is a lie, and refering to the elimination
objective as "animal rights" is a horrible misnomer as well as
being a sort of lie.

>or anything culpable, it's just their
>preference.

I quoted you explaining why they prefer to lie.

>>>to be
>>>treated that way. Just enjoy your ****ing meat like I do and stop being
>>>such
>>>a complete moron.
>>>
>>>> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
>>>> from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
>>>> of animal use." - Dutch
>>>
>>>SO ****ING WHAT?
>>
>> So obviously you're aware that they are tricking people into
>> donating money to something they don't agree with
>
>I never said they tricked anyone,

LOL! It was a shock when you explained why they lie to begin
with, but to go into details like that about the lie is certainly
more than anyone could ever expect from you.

>their stated goals are right out there for
>anyone to see.
>
>I don't agree with everything the political party I vote for stands for
>either, but I support enough things to support them.
>
>[..]
>
>> What do you think would be wrong with referring to the
>> objective to eliminate domestic animals as: The elimination
>> objective?
>
>Nothing,

I'm surprised you would allow such a degree of honesty.

>as long as you don't believe or attempt to portray in some bizarre
>foray into the twilight zone that such an objective would be harmful to any
>animals.
>
>There is nothing inherently wrong with "the elimination objective",

That doesn't mean providing decent AW couldn't be ethically
equivalent or superior, which is what I suggest and you people of
course have always maniacally opposed.

>except
>that it runs counter to my interests and wishes as a consumer of meat, among
>other things. What *is* wrong with the AR objective in my view is a lot of
>the inflammatory and twisted rhetoric that accompanies it.

All the lying is wrong as well as the use of the gross
misnomer itself.