<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:vri4r5hp6evfk04olmqkemcsbumj5htemu@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> 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.

I have an excellent reason, it is a self-serving, circular and useless thing
to consider.