On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Goo wrote:

>is it important to you to try to promote
>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>those products coming from animals raised and
>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>
>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.

No. It's the life they get or no life at all Goo, not the
life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
decide to buy.

dh@. lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>is it important to you to try to promote
>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>>those products coming from animals raised and
>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>>
>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.
>
>
> No.

Yes. It's a false choice, ****wit, because you're
collapsing two choices into one, stupidly thinking no
one would notice. I noticed. Your choice is a false
choice.


> It's the life they get or no life at all

First you decide if you're going to consume animal
products ("provide life for animals") at all. IF and
ONLY if you decide you're going to consume animal
products, THEN you're faced with deciding how much you
care about their quality of life ("decent lives" or
something less humane).

Answer the question, ****wit: WHY do you care that
livestock exist, other than to provide you with
products? The animals do not "benefit" by coming into
existence; YOU benefit by their existence.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Goo wrote:
>
>>is it important to you to try to promote
>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>>those products coming from animals raised and
>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>>
>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.
>
> No. It's the life they get or no life at all Goo, not the
> life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
> decide to buy.

You're equivocating between livestock *in general*, consumer impact *in
general* and the effect on specific animals. It's more clear now than it
ever was that your logic is bad, and it always has been very clear.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Goo wrote:
>>
>>>is it important to you to try to promote
>>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>>>those products coming from animals raised and
>>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>>>
>>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.
>>
>> No. It's the life they get or no life at all Goo, not the
>> life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
>> decide to buy.
>
>You're equivocating between livestock *in general*, consumer impact *in
>general* and the effect on specific animals. It's more clear now than it
>ever was that your logic is bad, and it always has been very clear.

You're just too stupid to understand that it's the life they get or no life
--NOT the life they get or a better life--for all livestock in general and for
each specific animal. It's amazing that anyone is too stupid to be able
to understand that:

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life."

but you are obviously too stupid to understand it, since you hilariously
think pointing the fact out is somehow bad logic.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>is it important to you to try to promote
>>>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
>>>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
>>>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
>>>>those products coming from animals raised and
>>>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
>>>>
>>>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.
>>>
>>> No. It's the life they get or no life at all Goo, not the
>>> life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
>>> decide to buy.
>>
>>You're equivocating between livestock *in general*, consumer impact *in
>>general* and the effect on specific animals. It's more clear now than it
>>ever was that your logic is bad, and it always has been very clear.
>
> You're just too stupid <snip>

That sums it up.

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 , Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> >>>is it important to you to try to promote
> >>>better conditions for them? If your answer is yes,
> >>>then you are morally obligated to inform yourself about
> >>>animal husbandry practices, and choose to consume only
> >>>those products coming from animals raised and
> >>>slaughtered in humane conditions.
> >>>
> >>>Your choice is a *false* choice, ****WIT.
> >>
> >> No. It's the life they get or no life at all, not the
> >> life they get or a "better" life, regardless of what people
> >> decide to buy.
> >
> >You're equivocating between livestock *in general*, consumer impact *in
> >general* and the effect on specific animals. It's more clear now than it
> >ever was that your logic is bad, and it always has been very clear.
>
> You're just too stupid to understand that it's the life they get or no life

Repeating your nonsense won't make it become sensible, ****wit.

Your choice is a false choice, ****wit, and now you're compounding your
stupid ****wittery by equivocating between individual animals and
specific ones. No one is fooled.