On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:48:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>I don't need to do anything of the kind
>>
>> LOL!!!!! Neither can "they". LOL!!!!
>
>Ohhh. hahaha. I get it. snork
>
>If someone says "Having no livestock at all is ethically superior to
>providing livestock with decent lives" then that person would be obliged to
>defend that statement.

Yes, just as you are obliged to try explaining how you want
people to think of your anti-consideration as being ethically
superior to having consideration. And just as "they" can't
explain their apparent absurdity, you can't explain yours either.
.. . .
>> They can certainly be what you and I would consider bleak
>> while still being of positive value to the animals, but you can't
>> afford to let yourself consider that fact because it works
>> against elimination.
>
>There's that other dishonest argument

I made two points, both of which are obvious and true.

>I didn't mention earlier, the
>strawman.
>
>>>at worst, I don't even
>>>want to contemplate it
>>
>> The worst is ALL you are willing to consider, while you deny
>> the fact that many have decent lives because acknowledging the
>> fact that many do works against elimination.
>
>I don't WANT elimination.

I believe you're lying, since if you did not want elimination
you would have NO reason to try restricting people from
considering when livestock have lives of positive value. In
contrast to that, since you do want elimination that fact and
that alone gives you reason to want to impose your restriction.