>>>One must assume that as children they enjoy childhood,
>> Then "one must" consider their lives, as I pointed out that >> people should do. It applies to raising livestock too btw, in >> case you don't recall me pointing that out for you too.
>Their lives have nothing to do with how we judge the exploitation.
>>>living in tropical >>>countries, playing all day, not attending school.
>>>The point is those lives have NO place in the argument about the morality >>>of >>>child slavery, no place at all.
>> Maybe not,
>You just flip-flopped
I take more things into consideration than you can.
> but the certainly do in regards to animals raised >> for food, there's no doubt about that.
>No they don't,
That's a lie and I know it's a lie.
>for the same reasons as above.
There are no reasons above. Not a single one, in fact. So I guess that means you lied twice in one sentence. You are a prolific liar, there's no doubt about that.
>The rest of the post is you making the same mistake over and over.
It's beginning to dawn on me how MUCH you people hate the fact that veg*nism contributes only to death, while meat eating contributes to life and death. The reason you don't want the animals' lives taken into consideration is because that shines a spotlight on what losers you people really are.
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clearly you can't do anything with it at all, as usual.
>>>>>> >>>>>>I already have replied in several replies to Tim.The subject has >>>>>> >>>>>>been >>>>>> >>>>>>discussed at length on aaev.
>>>>>> >>>>> You've never explained it.
>>>>>> >>>> Try this, if you don't accept that humans are special then you >>>>>> >>>> agree >>>>>> >>>> with >>>>>> >>>> Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
>>>>>> >>>> Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? No? Then you already understand >>>>>> >>>> and >>>>>> >>>> believe that humans are special.
>>>>>> >>>Humans are "special" in the way that young Ralph from the simpsons is >>>>>> >>>regarded as special. :P
>>>>>> >> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>> >> technologically.
>>>>>> >Ants build cities, bees build hives, spiders build webs, birds build >>>>>> >nests. >>>>>> >When was the last time you built anything on that scale?
>>>>>> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>> technologically. >>>>>Yes. >>>>>But you never seem to improve in your religious belief. >>>>>By this, I really mean that for 2000 years, with the advance of >>>>>knowledge and education, the attitude of the loony parents are still >>>>>the same. >>>>>They cling onto their belief as a comfort,
>>>> They have been no reason to put their faith in the >>>> possibility that God does not exist, as strong atheists do.
>>>Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because christians and >>>other religious zealots fail to prove that any gods exists. Such a failure >>>should be taken on the chin but christians are like you trolls. they still >>>go on even though they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist, >>nor can anyone else, meaning that Christians can't be "beaten" in >>the way you like to pretend they could be.
>>Disbelief in God is >>just another belief, and those who put their faith in that one >>are in no way superior for doing so than people who put their >>faith in a different belief, like Christianity.
>What kind of Alice Through the Looking Glass nonesense >is this?
LOL!!! What I pointed out is true and obvious. Did you really think faith in disbelief is somehow superior to all other religious faiths? LOL....what an absurd idea that is.
>You do your case no favours wth this kind of sillyness
>If you invert absence of belief into belief do >you not also invert your belief into absence of belief?
I'm a weak agnonstic, so I consider both possibilities but as yet have no reason to put faith in either.
>I think wll stay this side of the mirror, life is >complex enough as it is without turning everything >back to front.
If you think the faith of disbelievers is superior to that of believers you're upside down and backwards, and your apparent ignorance of the fact is quite amusing.
>>>So funny but it takes allsorts to make a world.
>> It's amusing that strong atheists and Dutch want to deny the >>very faith that's necessary in order for them to be one. It's >>remarkably stupid too.
>If would indeed be funny
LOL!!! It IS funny, and your ignorance of the fact is becomming hilarious.
>if your silly premis of inverting >absence of belief into belief was true.
Disbelief is not absence of belief, but in contrast it is disbelief which is a form of belief. So far I have absence of belief which is not a belief.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:08:02 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote >> Dutch wrote:
>[..]
>>>>> I didn't ask for a detailed explanation of your opinion, I just asked >>>>> if you ate meat.
>>>> I'm curious why you can't justify your position unless I eat meat.
>>> Who said I can't?
>> Fine. Get started.
>I already did.
The fact that there's no evidence you did suggests you're lying about it again.
>Read Regan vs Cohen, it's probably at your local library.
LOL!!!
>You >can also read up on "speciesism" on any number of web pages.
If not for speciesism humans certainly wouldn't have societies like we do, so why would anyone waste time reading up on it? Do you think there's some chance a person might develop a feeling of guilt or something, and if so then just try explaining how or why. Go:
>I'm not inclined to struggle to drag people kicking and screaming through a >topic.
>>>> It's your argument, not mine, and one can certainly eat meat without >>>> regarding one's self as special.
>>> Not your "self", your species.
>> One can certainly eat meat without regarding one's species as special.
>Explain. If I considered chickens to be the equivalent of humans, or even >close, I would not eat roast chicken.
>Maybe you should say what you think "special" means. When I say humans are >special I am saying that "speciesism" is rational, sane, and correct >thinking.
LOL! I mean: Duh. Saying that makes it that much more of a mystery why you would encourage anyone to read up on it. Try explaining it now. GO!:
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>> I know ways in which humans are special.
>>>>>>>Good, then shut up about it.
>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>>I have explained the difference between 1. "considering" (thinking >>>>>>>>>about), >>>>>>>>>the opposite of ignoring, and 2. "consideration" (altruism or >>>>>>>>>generosity), >>>>>>>>>the opposite of selfishness.
>>>>>>>> You oppose any sort of consideration for the lives of >>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>No, I am in favor of 2., 1. is pointless.
>>>>>> In what way(s) do you think you give generously to the lives >>>>>> of livestock?
>>>>>I didn't say that I do, what I said was that doing something which >>>>>improves >>>>>the lives of livestock is always a good, admirable thing.
>>>> This will be more complex than you are able to comprehend, >>>> but 2 stems from 1.
>>>1. has no significance,
>> Not to rocks, and possibly not to plants, but it does to you, >> and to me, and to every other animal we can think of except >> possibly to some micoorganisms.
>You need to explain how, because as far as I can tell considering that >livestock only exist because we raise them for food does exactly nothing >beyond the self-serving, tortured logic of the LoL.
>If it has more significance than that then it's about time you explained >what it is.
"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life." - Dutch
"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
> Indicate *one* animal or human it has ever helped. >>>does not contribute to the welfare of animals or >>>humans in any way. Thinking about something does not make you more moral >>>or >>>ethical. Animals do not benefit from this so called "consideration" you >>>laughingly attempt to promote. It is nothing but meaningless twaddle, >>>self-serving fumble-fingered sleight of hand that fools no-one.
>> It suggests that elimination may not be the most ethical >> possible option, which is why you hate it so much. Duh.
>It doesn't suggest anything of the kind,
That's as blatant a lie as you can and do tell.
>and I hate it because it's >self-serving circular nonsense.
That's a lie too. It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not raising animals for food is cruel TO THEM, and you hate it because you don't want people to consider the fact that it often is not.
"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>> I have learned that many animals experience lives of positive >>>>>>>> value because they're raised for food,
>>>>>>>Any many other animals are displaced, killed, maimed, starved or never >>>>>>>exist >>>>>>>at all because we raise animals for food. Why do you think you get to >>>>>>>bask >>>>>>>in reflected glory at a few satisfied chews of cud or pecks at the >>>>>>>ground >>>>>>>when this is the reality?
>>>>>> "Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, >>>>>> I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>>>>Yes, that is likely true, however we have no obligation to intervene
>>>> The fact that we don't have an obligation has nothing at all >>>> to do with it.
>>>It has everything to do with it.
>> Nope. It would matter if we did, but we don't, so it doesn't.
>That's essentially my point. The suffering of wild animals is not our >business,
It is when we cause it, whether you deny it or not.
>unless are implicated in it. That's why the quote you produced is >meaningless in this context.
>>>The whole jist of this issue is that we >>>have a moral obligation to consider the welfare of livestock *because* >>>they >>>are in our care and exist to serve our needs and wants, wildlife is not. >>>Wildlife are simply creatures who share this planet with us. We do not >>>however have any obligation OR need to ensure that livestock exist, except >>>inasmuch as we need them for products.
>>>>>to >>>>>prevent the suffering of wildlife when its just part of nature.
>>>>>>>Such smug, self-serving sophistry.
>>>>>>>> and you can't make me >>>>>>>> unlearn the fact nor can you make the fact appear to be any less >>>>>>>> significant than it is, which is extremely significant. You can't >>>>>>>> even come close to doing either.
>>>>>>>Because you're stubborn, prideful
>>>>>> I have learned though personal experience that many animals >>>>>> raised for food have lives of positive value
>>>>>blah blah blah meaningless twaddle
>>>> There was a time when you pretended you could understand the >>>> significance of it:
>>>> "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our >>>> lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock >>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>> "we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL >>>> exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
>>>> "Because future animals who will inevitably be born are >>>> as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
>>>> Why did you pretend to that you could understand the >>>> significance, when you're making it very clear that you can not?
>>>I appreciate that you collect quotes of mine, I must be very important to >>>you,
>> It's not hard, you poor ignorant 'tard.
>>>too bad you are too stupid and stubborn to understand the context of >>>them.
>> LOL!!! I explain it to you, you poor drooling fool. You're >> the one who can't understand your own quotes, nor can you explain >> how you think you disagree with yourself.
>With all the advances of human technology there is still no answer for bone >stupidity like yours. Good arguments are wasted on the stupid.
You've never provided a good argument, but as always I challenge you to try doing it now.
>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:2kt1c5dvlra7s3bpp5vq5h8rj32l5rvmm9@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:57:50 -0700, "Nostrodumbass" >>>>>>>>>>>> <ne...@spammer.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, anyway... Do you often get confused as to whether you've >>>>>>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>>>>>> responded to a post? >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. If I had to guess I would say it is very rare, >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> news server I am using delays or fails to relay a response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask? >>>>>>>>>>>> He probably asked because of its similarity to your tenedency to >>>>>>>>>>>> try to >>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with yourself. Maybe he's trying to figure out whether >>>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>> honestly mentally impaired or more deliberately dishonest, as I've >>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>> trying >>>>>>>>>>>> to do for the past nine or ten years or whatever... >>>>>>>>>>> He asked because asking stupid questions is his game. >>>>>>>>>> LOL! Asking questions to make you expose how stupid you >>>>>>>>>> are appears to be his game >>>>>>>>> Asking questions in the hopes of making someone appear stupid >>>>>>>> Is not what I was doing. I expected you to defend your statement that >>>>>>>> humans are 'special'. You decided instead to make yourself look stupid. >>>>>>> No he didn't. He decided to point out that you are one of those very >>>>>>> special individuals that like to make himself look smart by making others >>>>>>> look stupid. That you don't know the people you are attempting to make >>>>>>> look stupid makes you look stupid. I'm not saying you are stupid but your >>>>>>> posts in this thread thusfar dio not help your case. >>>>>> I did not try to make a case. I merely questioned a statement. >>>>> And so making a case. >>>>> trying to make yourself look clever is what most people on usenet have been >>>>> doing since it began and in other public places before usenet began. What's >>>>> laughable is that every joker thinks they are the first >>>> Nope, but it is amusing for one thing that you think you're >>>> the first, and for another it's possibly even more amusing that >>>> you believe everyone else thinks they are too. >>> People that use, "but it is amusing" only do so to try and make themselves >>> look clever,
>> LOL! You are an amusing one even though you are dishonest.
>I myself an a bit curious what he thought the difference is between 'it >is amusing' and 'what's laughable'.
It's impossible to know just what goes on in that twisted little mind of his, and how his interpretation of things changes completely from one brain spasm to the next. The poor fool can't appreciate most of the amusing posts here I guess though, since the absurd blatancy of his lameness and dishonesty are the source of the majority of it.
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clearly you can't do anything with it at all, as usual.
>>>>>> >>>>>>I already have replied in several replies to Tim.The subject has >>>>>> >>>>>>been >>>>>> >>>>>>discussed at length on aaev.
>>>>>> >>>>> You've never explained it.
>>>>>> >>>> Try this, if you don't accept that humans are special then you >>>>>> >>>> agree >>>>>> >>>> with >>>>>> >>>> Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
>>>>>> >>>> Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? No? Then you already understand >>>>>> >>>> and >>>>>> >>>> believe that humans are special.
>>>>>> >>>Humans are "special" in the way that young Ralph from the simpsons >>>>>> >>>is >>>>>> >>>regarded as special. :P
>>>>>> >> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>> >> technologically.
>>>>>> >Ants build cities, bees build hives, spiders build webs, birds build >>>>>> >nests. >>>>>> >When was the last time you built anything on that scale?
>>>>>> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>> technologically. >>>>>Yes. >>>>>But you never seem to improve in your religious belief. >>>>>By this, I really mean that for 2000 years, with the advance of >>>>>knowledge and education, the attitude of the loony parents are still >>>>>the same. >>>>>They cling onto their belief as a comfort,
>>>> They have been no reason to put their faith in the >>>> possibility that God does not exist, as strong atheists do.
>>>Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because christians and >>>other religious zealots fail to prove that any gods exists. Such a failure >>>should be taken on the chin but christians are like you trolls. they still >>>go on even though they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist,
>I don't have too. in this debate the onus of proof is on yourself. You're >the one trying to persuade us that your god exists;
Present an example of me trying to do that or once again be known a liar.
>>>>>>> ><dh@.> wrote in >>>>>>> >messagenews:k59ee5tqlj3a5gg48i2em4a0rhpq8cslmk@4ax.com... >>>>>>> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:55:21 -0000, "This is not a love song" >>>>>>> >> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clearly you can't do anything with it at all, as usual.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>I already have replied in several replies to Tim.The subject has >>>>>>> >>>>>>been >>>>>>> >>>>>>discussed at length on aaev.
>>>>>>> >>>>> You've never explained it.
>>>>>>> >>>> Try this, if you don't accept that humans are special then you >>>>>>> >>>> agree >>>>>>> >>>> with >>>>>>> >>>> Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
>>>>>>> >>>> Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? No? Then you already understand >>>>>>> >>>> and >>>>>>> >>>> believe that humans are special.
>>>>>>> >>>Humans are "special" in the way that young Ralph from the simpsons is >>>>>>> >>>regarded as special. :P
>>>>>>> >> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>>> >> technologically.
>>>>>>> >Ants build cities, bees build hives, spiders build webs, birds build >>>>>>> >nests. >>>>>>> >When was the last time you built anything on that scale?
>>>>>>> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>>> technologically. >>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>But you never seem to improve in your religious belief. >>>>>>By this, I really mean that for 2000 years, with the advance of >>>>>>knowledge and education, the attitude of the loony parents are still >>>>>>the same. >>>>>>They cling onto their belief as a comfort,
>>>>> They have been no reason to put their faith in the >>>>> possibility that God does not exist, as strong atheists do.
>>>>Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because christians and >>>>other religious zealots fail to prove that any gods exists. Such a failure >>>>should be taken on the chin but christians are like you trolls. they still >>>>go on even though they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
>>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist, >>>nor can anyone else, meaning that Christians can't be "beaten" in >>>the way you like to pretend they could be.
>>>Disbelief in God is >>>just another belief, and those who put their faith in that one >>>are in no way superior for doing so than people who put their >>>faith in a different belief, like Christianity.
>>What kind of Alice Through the Looking Glass nonesense >>is this?
> LOL!!! What I pointed out is true and obvious. Did you really >think faith in disbelief is somehow superior to all other >religious faiths? LOL....what an absurd idea that is.
Indeed but it is your idea not mine. I said nothing about faith.
>>You do your case no favours wth this kind of sillyness
>>If you invert absence of belief into belief do >>you not also invert your belief into absence of belief?
> I'm a weak agnonstic, so I consider both possibilities but as >yet have no reason to put faith in either.
Indeed
The strong atheist believes gods do not exists but that does not mean disbelief is belief.
>>I think wll stay this side of the mirror, life is >>complex enough as it is without turning everything >>back to front.
> If you think the faith of disbelievers is superior to that of >believers you're upside down and backwards, and your apparent >ignorance of the fact is quite amusing.
The if clause does not apply.
>>>>So funny but it takes allsorts to make a world.
>>> It's amusing that strong atheists and Dutch want to deny the >>>very faith that's necessary in order for them to be one. It's >>>remarkably stupid too.
>>If would indeed be funny
> LOL!!! It IS funny, and your ignorance of the fact is >becomming hilarious.
Fact what fact? Thus far we only have your strange assertion that disbelief is belief (and belief disbelief?)
>>if your silly premis of inverting >>absence of belief into belief was true.
> Disbelief is not absence of belief, but in contrast it is >disbelief which is a form of belief. So far I have absence of >belief which is not a belief.
That's my position. I have no reason to believe gods exist as claimed by others, in fact I have no beliefs of any kind concerning gods.
If you claim that disbelief isn't the same as absence of belief but belief I suggest you take it up with dictionary complilers
-- Les Hellawell Greetings from: YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
>>>>>>> ><dh@.> wrote in >>>>>>> >messagenews:k59ee5tqlj3a5gg48i2em4a0rhpq8cslmk@4ax.com... >>>>>>> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:55:21 -0000, "This is not a love song" >>>>>>> >> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clearly you can't do anything with it at all, as usual.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>I already have replied in several replies to Tim.The subject >>>>>>> >>>>>>has >>>>>>> >>>>>>been >>>>>>> >>>>>>discussed at length on aaev.
>>>>>>> >>>>> You've never explained it.
>>>>>>> >>>> Try this, if you don't accept that humans are special then you >>>>>>> >>>> agree >>>>>>> >>>> with >>>>>>> >>>> Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
>>>>>>> >>>> Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? No? Then you already >>>>>>> >>>> understand >>>>>>> >>>> and >>>>>>> >>>> believe that humans are special.
>>>>>>> >>>Humans are "special" in the way that young Ralph from the >>>>>>> >>>simpsons is >>>>>>> >>>regarded as special. :P
>>>>>>> >> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>>> >> technologically.
>>>>>>> >Ants build cities, bees build hives, spiders build webs, birds >>>>>>> >build >>>>>>> >nests. >>>>>>> >When was the last time you built anything on that scale?
>>>>>>> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>>> technologically. >>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>But you never seem to improve in your religious belief. >>>>>>By this, I really mean that for 2000 years, with the advance of >>>>>>knowledge and education, the attitude of the loony parents are still >>>>>>the same. >>>>>>They cling onto their belief as a comfort,
>>>>> They have been no reason to put their faith in the >>>>> possibility that God does not exist, as strong atheists do.
>>>>Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because christians >>>>and >>>>other religious zealots fail to prove that any gods exists. Such a >>>>failure >>>>should be taken on the chin but christians are like you trolls. they >>>>still >>>>go on even though they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
>>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist, >>>nor can anyone else, meaning that Christians can't be "beaten" in >>>the way you like to pretend they could be.
>>>Disbelief in God is >>>just another belief, and those who put their faith in that one >>>are in no way superior for doing so than people who put their >>>faith in a different belief, like Christianity.
>>What kind of Alice Through the Looking Glass nonesense >>is this?
>>>>>>> ><dh@.> wrote in >>>>>>> >messagenews:k59ee5tqlj3a5gg48i2em4a0rhpq8cslmk@4ax.com... >>>>>>> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:55:21 -0000, "This is not a love song" >>>>>>> >> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clearly you can't do anything with it at all, as usual.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>I already have replied in several replies to Tim.The subject >>>>>>> >>>>>>has >>>>>>> >>>>>>been >>>>>>> >>>>>>discussed at length on aaev.
>>>>>>> >>>>> You've never explained it.
>>>>>>> >>>> Try this, if you don't accept that humans are special then you >>>>>>> >>>> agree >>>>>>> >>>> with >>>>>>> >>>> Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
>>>>>>> >>>> Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? No? Then you already >>>>>>> >>>> understand >>>>>>> >>>> and >>>>>>> >>>> believe that humans are special.
>>>>>>> >>>Humans are "special" in the way that young Ralph from the >>>>>>> >>>simpsons >>>>>>> >>>is >>>>>>> >>>regarded as special. :P
>>>>>>> >> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>>> >> technologically.
>>>>>>> >Ants build cities, bees build hives, spiders build webs, birds >>>>>>> >build >>>>>>> >nests. >>>>>>> >When was the last time you built anything on that scale?
>>>>>>> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>>> technologically. >>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>But you never seem to improve in your religious belief. >>>>>>By this, I really mean that for 2000 years, with the advance of >>>>>>knowledge and education, the attitude of the loony parents are still >>>>>>the same. >>>>>>They cling onto their belief as a comfort,
>>>>> They have been no reason to put their faith in the >>>>> possibility that God does not exist, as strong atheists do.
>>>>Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because christians >>>>and >>>>other religious zealots fail to prove that any gods exists. Such a >>>>failure >>>>should be taken on the chin but christians are like you trolls. they >>>>still >>>>go on even though they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
>>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist,
>>I don't have too. in this debate the onus of proof is on yourself. You're >>the one trying to persuade us that your god exists;
> Present an example of me trying to do that or once again be > known a liar.
Pay attention, you silly boy. I never said you had attempted to prove it, I said the onus was on you to prove that your god exists. Once again you have failed.
> >><dh@.> wrote in message > >>news:l341f5tvolsc462babfu65r3886vfrh81s@4ax.com... > >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:21:11 -0000, "This is not a love song" > >>> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because > >>>> christians and other religious zealots fail to prove that any > >>>> gods exists. Such a failure should be taken on the chin but > >>>> christians are like you trolls. they still go on even though > >>>> they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
> >>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist,
> >> I don't have too. in this debate the onus of proof is on yourself. > >> You're the one trying to persuade us that your god exists;
> > Present an example of me trying to do that or once again be > > known a liar.
> Pay attention, you silly boy. I never said you had attempted to prove > it, I said the onus was on you to prove that your god exists. Once > again you have failed.
Right!!!
Theism requires belief in the existence of some god(s). Atheism merely requires lack of such belief. Note that mere atheism does not require any sort of belief (while it allows belief in non-existence of gods, it does not require it).
Therefore justifying theism requires proof of existence where justifying atheism merely requires its lack.
>> >>>> Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because >> >>>> christians and other religious zealots fail to prove that any >> >>>> gods exists. Such a failure should be taken on the chin but >> >>>> christians are like you trolls. they still go on even though >> >>>> they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
>> >>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist,
>> >> I don't have too. in this debate the onus of proof is on yourself. >> >> You're the one trying to persuade us that your god exists;
>> > Present an example of me trying to do that or once again be >> > known a liar.
>> Pay attention, you silly boy. I never said you had attempted to prove >> it, I said the onus was on you to prove that your god exists. Once >> again you have failed.
> Right!!!
Exclamation marks and everything. That must mean what you are about to say is true. :P
> Theism requires belief in the existence of some god(s). > Atheism merely requires lack of such belief. > Note that mere atheism does not require any sort of belief (while it > allows belief in non-existence of gods, it does not require it).
> Therefore justifying theism requires proof of existence > where justifying atheism merely requires its lack.
Indeed but dh will argue with you. Whether he's a theist is doubtful as he is a troll so you can't take anything he says without a cellar of salt. :) although he's never actually denied being a troll.
>>>>One must assume that as children they enjoy childhood,
>>> Then "one must" consider their lives, as I pointed out that >>> people should do. It applies to raising livestock too btw, in >>> case you don't recall me pointing that out for you too.
>>Their lives have nothing to do with how we judge the exploitation.
>>>>living in tropical >>>>countries, playing all day, not attending school.
>>>>The point is those lives have NO place in the argument about the >>>>morality >>>>of >>>>child slavery, no place at all.
>>> Maybe not,
>>You just flip-flopped
> I take more things into consideration than you can.
You take things into consideration irrationally and illegitimately because you have deluded yourself into believing something ridiculous, and you have defended it for so long you're stuck, similar to the ARA who is stuck by his history of irrational rhetoric.
>> but the certainly do in regards to animals raised >>> for food, there's no doubt about that.
>>No they don't,
> That's a lie and I know it's a lie.
There is no supportable reason to "consider" the life of an animal (aka the LoL) and not "consider" the life of a human.
So, since according to your argument you must "consider" the life of a human, so then the life of a child sex slave must also be a mitigating factor when deciding if raising child slaves is moral or not. Yet, clearly it is not, in fact the very idea is disgusting, as you said yourself.
>>for the same reasons as above.
> There are no reasons above. Not a single one, in fact. So I > guess that means you lied twice in one sentence. You are a > prolific liar, there's no doubt about that.
Hollow accusation.
>>The rest of the post is you making the same mistake over and over.
> It's beginning to dawn on me how MUCH you people hate the > fact that veg*nism contributes only to death, while meat eating > contributes to life and death.
That's false, high protein crops attract and support populations of animals, so veganism does contribute to both life and death of animals.
> The reason you don't want the > animals' lives taken into consideration is because that shines a > spotlight on what losers you people really are.
That's a strawman, the reason is that it is a disgusting and illegitimate thing to do.
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>>> I know ways in which humans are special.
>>>>>>>>Good, then shut up about it.
>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>>>I have explained the difference between 1. "considering" (thinking >>>>>>>>>>about), >>>>>>>>>>the opposite of ignoring, and 2. "consideration" (altruism or >>>>>>>>>>generosity), >>>>>>>>>>the opposite of selfishness.
>>>>>>>>> You oppose any sort of consideration for the lives of >>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>>No, I am in favor of 2., 1. is pointless.
>>>>>>> In what way(s) do you think you give generously to the lives >>>>>>> of livestock?
>>>>>>I didn't say that I do, what I said was that doing something which >>>>>>improves >>>>>>the lives of livestock is always a good, admirable thing.
>>>>> This will be more complex than you are able to comprehend, >>>>> but 2 stems from 1.
>>>>1. has no significance,
>>> Not to rocks, and possibly not to plants, but it does to you, >>> and to me, and to every other animal we can think of except >>> possibly to some micoorganisms.
>>You need to explain how, because as far as I can tell considering that >>livestock only exist because we raise them for food does exactly nothing >>beyond the self-serving, tortured logic of the LoL.
>>If it has more significance than that then it's about time you explained >>what it is.
> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental > experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
Animals' lives are not the LoL.
You didn't answer the question, as usual, and you never will. There is no answer, because what you suggest is meaningless drivel.
>> Indicate *one* animal or human it has ever helped.
<no response>
>>>>does not contribute to the welfare of animals or >>>>humans in any way. Thinking about something does not make you more moral >>>>or >>>>ethical. Animals do not benefit from this so called "consideration" you >>>>laughingly attempt to promote. It is nothing but meaningless twaddle, >>>>self-serving fumble-fingered sleight of hand that fools no-one.
>>> It suggests that elimination may not be the most ethical >>> possible option, which is why you hate it so much. Duh.
>>It doesn't suggest anything of the kind,
> That's as blatant a lie as you can and do tell.
It's a fact you can't grasp.
>>and I hate it because it's >>self-serving circular nonsense.
> That's a lie too. It's a necessary part of evaluating whether > or not raising animals for food is cruel TO THEM, and you hate it > because you don't want people to consider the fact that it often > is not.
It's not necessary, it's meaningless.
> "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our > lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
That thought does nothing to help any animal. It is also increasingly untrue in this era of factory farming.
>>>>>>>>> I have learned that many animals experience lives of positive >>>>>>>>> value because they're raised for food,
>>>>>>>>Any many other animals are displaced, killed, maimed, starved or >>>>>>>>never >>>>>>>>exist >>>>>>>>at all because we raise animals for food. Why do you think you get >>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>bask >>>>>>>>in reflected glory at a few satisfied chews of cud or pecks at the >>>>>>>>ground >>>>>>>>when this is the reality?
>>>>>>> "Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, >>>>>>> I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>Yes, that is likely true, however we have no obligation to intervene
>>>>> The fact that we don't have an obligation has nothing at all >>>>> to do with it.
>>>>It has everything to do with it.
>>> Nope. It would matter if we did, but we don't, so it doesn't.
>>That's essentially my point. The suffering of wild animals is not our >>business,
> It is when we cause it, whether you deny it or not.
I was talking about natural suffering, not human created.
>>unless are implicated in it. That's why the quote you produced is >>meaningless in this context.
>>>>The whole jist of this issue is that we >>>>have a moral obligation to consider the welfare of livestock *because* >>>>they >>>>are in our care and exist to serve our needs and wants, wildlife is not. >>>>Wildlife are simply creatures who share this planet with us. We do not >>>>however have any obligation OR need to ensure that livestock exist, >>>>except >>>>inasmuch as we need them for products.
>>>>>>to >>>>>>prevent the suffering of wildlife when its just part of nature.
>>>>>>>>Such smug, self-serving sophistry.
>>>>>>>>> and you can't make me >>>>>>>>> unlearn the fact nor can you make the fact appear to be any less >>>>>>>>> significant than it is, which is extremely significant. You can't >>>>>>>>> even come close to doing either.
>>>>>>>>Because you're stubborn, prideful
>>>>>>> I have learned though personal experience that many animals >>>>>>> raised for food have lives of positive value
>>>>>>blah blah blah meaningless twaddle
>>>>> There was a time when you pretended you could understand the >>>>> significance of it:
>>>>> "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our >>>>> lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract" - "Dutch"
>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock >>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>> "we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL >>>>> exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
>>>>> "Because future animals who will inevitably be born are >>>>> as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
>>>>> Why did you pretend to that you could understand the >>>>> significance, when you're making it very clear that you can not?
>>>>I appreciate that you collect quotes of mine, I must be very important >>>>to >>>>you,
>>> It's not hard, you poor ignorant 'tard.
>>>>too bad you are too stupid and stubborn to understand the context of >>>>them.
>>> LOL!!! I explain it to you, you poor drooling fool. You're >>> the one who can't understand your own quotes, nor can you explain >>> how you think you disagree with yourself.
>>With all the advances of human technology there is still no answer for >>bone >>stupidity like yours. Good arguments are wasted on the stupid.
> You've never provided a good argument, but as always I > challenge you to try doing it now.
>>>>>>>> ><dh@.> wrote in >>>>>>>> >messagenews:k59ee5tqlj3a5gg48i2em4a0rhpq8cslmk@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:55:21 -0000, "This is not a love song" >>>>>>>> >> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clearly you can't do anything with it at all, as usual.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>I already have replied in several replies to Tim.The subject has >>>>>>>> >>>>>>been >>>>>>>> >>>>>>discussed at length on aaev.
>>>>>>>> >>>>> You've never explained it.
>>>>>>>> >>>> Try this, if you don't accept that humans are special then you >>>>>>>> >>>> agree >>>>>>>> >>>> with >>>>>>>> >>>> Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
>>>>>>>> >>>> Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? No? Then you already understand >>>>>>>> >>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>> believe that humans are special.
>>>>>>>> >>>Humans are "special" in the way that young Ralph from the simpsons is >>>>>>>> >>>regarded as special. :P
>>>>>>>> >> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>>>> >> technologically.
>>>>>>>> >Ants build cities, bees build hives, spiders build webs, birds build >>>>>>>> >nests. >>>>>>>> >When was the last time you built anything on that scale?
>>>>>>>> One way humans are special is that they are improving >>>>>>>> technologically. >>>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>>But you never seem to improve in your religious belief. >>>>>>>By this, I really mean that for 2000 years, with the advance of >>>>>>>knowledge and education, the attitude of the loony parents are still >>>>>>>the same. >>>>>>>They cling onto their belief as a comfort,
>>>>>> They have been no reason to put their faith in the >>>>>> possibility that God does not exist, as strong atheists do.
>>>>>Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because christians and >>>>>other religious zealots fail to prove that any gods exists. Such a failure >>>>>should be taken on the chin but christians are like you trolls. they still >>>>>go on even though they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
>>>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist, >>>>nor can anyone else, meaning that Christians can't be "beaten" in >>>>the way you like to pretend they could be.
>>>>Disbelief in God is >>>>just another belief, and those who put their faith in that one >>>>are in no way superior for doing so than people who put their >>>>faith in a different belief, like Christianity.
>>>What kind of Alice Through the Looking Glass nonesense >>>is this?
>> LOL!!! What I pointed out is true and obvious. Did you really >>think faith in disbelief is somehow superior to all other >>religious faiths? LOL....what an absurd idea that is.
>Indeed but it is your idea not mine.
It's the way it is. If the way it is is not your idea, then you disbelieve the truth.
>I said nothing about faith.
Faith is the degree of confidence a person has that they are correct about something. The amount of faith a person has that God doesn't exist is what determines how strong an atheist they are or are not.
>>>You do your case no favours wth this kind of sillyness
>>>If you invert absence of belief into belief do >>>you not also invert your belief into absence of belief?
>> I'm a weak agnonstic, so I consider both possibilities but as >>yet have no reason to put faith in either.
>Indeed
>The strong atheist believes gods do not exists >but that does not mean disbelief is belief.
Believing something does not exist is a belief. In case you're wondering what it's a belief in, it is: That something does not exist.
>>>I think wll stay this side of the mirror, life is >>>complex enough as it is without turning everything >>>back to front.
>> If you think the faith of disbelievers is superior to that of >>believers you're upside down and backwards, and your apparent >>ignorance of the fact is quite amusing.
>The if clause does not apply.
It applies from my position, and I suspect it's possible that you don't know whether you really believe them superior or not. You may be a strong atheist and unaware of your own faith.
>>>>>So funny but it takes allsorts to make a world.
>>>> It's amusing that strong atheists and Dutch want to deny the >>>>very faith that's necessary in order for them to be one. It's >>>>remarkably stupid too.
>>>If would indeed be funny
>> LOL!!! It IS funny, and your ignorance of the fact is >>becomming hilarious.
>Fact what fact?
That disbelief is a belief for one, and that strong atheism requires a certain amount of faith for two.
>Thus far we only have your strange assertion >that disbelief is belief (and belief disbelief?)
Apparently there's confusion from more than one direction. Part of it is my fault because I had thought of disbelief as meaning someone thinks an idea is incorrect, where apparently it can mean either that or just not having a belief: _________________________________________________________ . . . People’s misunderstanding about the nature of atheism can sometimes be traced to a misunderstanding about the nature of disbelief. Comprehensive dictionaries generally define atheism as the “disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods,” and atheists commonly refer to atheism as simply not believing in any gods — but is not believing something the same as denying it?
Certainly disbelief and denial aren’t considered the same in the dictionaries, otherwise they wouldn’t need to list both. In the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, the primary definition of “disbelieve” is simply “not believe” and the secondary definition is “reject belief in.” Both of these meanings are distinct from “deny,” which is not listed. Both of these also match the definition used for “weak atheism,” which is to lack belief in the existence of any gods.
Logically speaking, mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannot be treated as equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. . . . http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/beliefdisbelief.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>if your silly premis of inverting >>>absence of belief into belief was true.
>> Disbelief is not absence of belief, but in contrast it is >>disbelief which is a form of belief. So far I have absence of >>belief which is not a belief.
>That's my position. I have no reason to believe gods exist >as claimed by others, in fact I have no beliefs of any kind concerning >gods.
>If you claim that disbelief isn't the same as absence of belief but >belief I suggest you take it up with dictionary complilers
I did and apparently disbelief can mean not having any belief, so what term do you like for having faith that something is incorrect which is what makes a person a strong atheist?
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:25:49 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: ><dh@.> wrote in message news:9ha6f59ap3ek8r3v7hpsf6bi401dlc8gro@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:42:11 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>>>> I know ways in which humans are special.
>>>>>>>>>Good, then shut up about it.
>>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>>>>I have explained the difference between 1. "considering" (thinking >>>>>>>>>>>about), >>>>>>>>>>>the opposite of ignoring, and 2. "consideration" (altruism or >>>>>>>>>>>generosity), >>>>>>>>>>>the opposite of selfishness.
>>>>>>>>>> You oppose any sort of consideration for the lives of >>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>>>No, I am in favor of 2., 1. is pointless.
>>>>>>>> In what way(s) do you think you give generously to the lives >>>>>>>> of livestock?
>>>>>>>I didn't say that I do, what I said was that doing something which >>>>>>>improves >>>>>>>the lives of livestock is always a good, admirable thing.
>>>>>> This will be more complex than you are able to comprehend, >>>>>> but 2 stems from 1.
>>>>>1. has no significance,
>>>> Not to rocks, and possibly not to plants, but it does to you, >>>> and to me, and to every other animal we can think of except >>>> possibly to some micoorganisms.
>>>You need to explain how, because as far as I can tell considering that >>>livestock only exist because we raise them for food does exactly nothing >>>beyond the self-serving, tortured logic of the LoL.
>>>If it has more significance than that then it's about time you explained >>>what it is.
>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental >> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>Animals' lives are not the LoL.
Appreciation of them certainly is.
>You didn't answer the question, as usual, and you never will. There is no >answer, because what you suggest is meaningless drivel.
>>> Indicate *one* animal or human it has ever helped.
><no response>
Cage free laying hens as I've pointed out in the past. If more people took more interest there would be more things like that available, which of course is the opposite of what eliminationists want to see happen.
>>>>>does not contribute to the welfare of animals or >>>>>humans in any way. Thinking about something does not make you more moral >>>>>or >>>>>ethical. Animals do not benefit from this so called "consideration" you >>>>>laughingly attempt to promote. It is nothing but meaningless twaddle, >>>>>self-serving fumble-fingered sleight of hand that fools no-one.
>>>> It suggests that elimination may not be the most ethical >>>> possible option, which is why you hate it so much. Duh.
>>>It doesn't suggest anything of the kind,
>> That's as blatant a lie as you can and do tell.
>It's a fact
It's a blatant lie.
>you can't grasp.
I'm aware it's a blatant lie.
>>>and I hate it because it's >>>self-serving circular nonsense.
>> That's a lie too. It's a necessary part of evaluating whether >> or not raising animals for food is cruel TO THEM, and you hate it >> because you don't want people to consider the fact that it often >> is not.
>It's not necessary,
Only to those who can't make the evaluation, like those of you who have already decided you think the animals' lives are always a negative thing regardless of whether they are positive or negative for the animals themselves. You can't make an evaluation because you've already decided it's always bad, while others of us consider the lives involved with different situations and evaluate whether we think they're cruel or not case by case. You've proven that you can't appreciate that, but it's what some of us can do and do regardless of your own inability to do so.
>> >>>> Athiests don't beleive in the existence of any god because >> >>>> christians and other religious zealots fail to prove that any >> >>>> gods exists. Such a failure should be taken on the chin but >> >>>> christians are like you trolls. they still go on even though >> >>>> they've been thouroughly beaten att ever turn.
>> >>> You can't prove or provide evidence that God doesn't exist,
>> >> I don't have too. in this debate the onus of proof is on yourself. >> >> You're the one trying to persuade us that your god exists;
>> > Present an example of me trying to do that or once again be >> > known a liar.
>> Pay attention, you silly boy. I never said you had attempted to prove >> it, I said the onus was on you to prove that your god exists. Once >> again you have failed.
>Right!!!
>Theism requires belief in the existence of some god(s). >Atheism merely requires lack of such belief. >Note that mere atheism does not require any sort of belief (while it >allows belief in non-existence of gods, it does not require it).
>Therefore justifying theism requires proof of existence >where justifying atheism merely requires its lack.
That's only true of weak atheism but not of strong atheism.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:48:25 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: >"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote >> Dutch wrote: >>> I'm not ready to give up on you but I'll put you back in if you ask >>> nicely.
>> I really don't think you're capable of doing that. You can't resist the >> urge to read every one of my posts.
>Don't flatter yourself, I try to read and respond to all responses to my >posts. I don't go out of my way to read other posts of yours unless I happen >to stumble on one, you're not that interesting. In the one instance that >happened I can recall you appeared to be acting like a normal, balanced >person, which made me wonder why you have such a carrot up your ass when >dealing with me.
I'm pretty sure that's because he has you figured out. For all your apparent idiocy you are a fairly slick dishonest slime bag and a fair percentage of people do seem to be fooled by it, but people like myself and it looks like Tim are able to spot your dishonest ways and point them out and have some degree of fun with your otherwise rather contemptible dishonesty. Mr Smartypants has you figured out too, in case you hadn't noticed.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:17:48 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:40:07 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:08:02 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote >>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>[..]
>>>>>>> I didn't ask for a detailed explanation of your opinion, I just asked >>>>>>> if you ate meat.
>>>>>> I'm curious why you can't justify your position unless I eat meat.
>>>>> Who said I can't?
>>>> Fine. Get started.
>>>I already did.
>> The fact that there's no evidence you did suggests you're >>lying about it again.
>>>Read Regan vs Cohen, it's probably at your local library.
>> LOL!!!
>>>You >>>can also read up on "speciesism" on any number of web pages.
>> If not for speciesism humans certainly wouldn't have >>societies like we do, so why would anyone waste time reading up >>on it? Do you think there's some chance a person might develop a >>feeling of guilt or something, and if so then just try explaining >>how or why. Go:
>>>I'm not inclined to struggle to drag people kicking and screaming through a >>>topic.
>>>>>> It's your argument, not mine, and one can certainly eat meat without >>>>>> regarding one's self as special.
>>>>> Not your "self", your species.
>>>> One can certainly eat meat without regarding one's species as special.
>>>Explain. If I considered chickens to be the equivalent of humans, or even >>>close, I would not eat roast chicken.
>>>Maybe you should say what you think "special" means. When I say humans are >>>special I am saying that "speciesism" is rational, sane, and correct >>>thinking.
>> LOL! I mean: Duh. Saying that makes it that much more of a >>mystery why you would encourage anyone to read up on it. Try >>explaining it now. GO!:
>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Again you've displayed the fact that you have no idea what it is you think you're trying to talk about, much MUCH less do you have a clue why anyone else should: "Read Regan vs Cohen".
>>>>>One must assume that as children they enjoy childhood,
>>>> Then "one must" consider their lives, as I pointed out that >>>> people should do. It applies to raising livestock too btw, in >>>> case you don't recall me pointing that out for you too.
>>>Their lives have nothing to do with how we judge the exploitation.
>>>>>living in tropical >>>>>countries, playing all day, not attending school.
>>>>>The point is those lives have NO place in the argument about the >>>>>morality >>>>>of >>>>>child slavery, no place at all.
>>>> Maybe not,
>>>You just flip-flopped
>> I take more things into consideration than you can.
>You take things into consideration irrationally and illegitimately because >you have deluded yourself into believing something ridiculous, and you have >defended it for so long you're stuck, similar to the ARA who is stuck by his >history of irrational rhetoric.
You believe elimination is the most ethical possible approach and we both know it.
>>> but the certainly do in regards to animals raised >>>> for food, there's no doubt about that.
>>>No they don't,
>> That's a lie and I know it's a lie.
>There is no supportable reason to "consider" the life of an animal (aka the >LoL) and not "consider" the life of a human.
True. But since lives of any value are meaningless to you that means you're incapable of appreciating the difference between those of positive value and those of negative value for any beings. . . .
>> The reason you don't want the >> animals' lives taken into consideration is because that shines a >> spotlight on what losers you people really are.
> I did and apparently disbelief can mean not having any > belief, so what term do you like for having faith that something > is incorrect which is what makes a person a strong atheist?
Describe the faith required to not accept an unproven concept?
> Only to those who can't make the evaluation, like those of > you who have already decided you think the animals' lives are > always a negative thing regardless of whether they are positive > or negative for the animals themselves. You can't make an > evaluation because you've already decided it's always bad, while > others of us consider the lives involved with different > situations and evaluate whether we think they're cruel or not > case by case. You've proven that you can't appreciate that, but > it's what some of us can do and do regardless of your own > inability to do so.
>>>>>>One must assume that as children they enjoy childhood,
>>>>> Then "one must" consider their lives, as I pointed out that >>>>> people should do. It applies to raising livestock too btw, in >>>>> case you don't recall me pointing that out for you too.
>>>>Their lives have nothing to do with how we judge the exploitation.
>>>>>>living in tropical >>>>>>countries, playing all day, not attending school.
>>>>>>The point is those lives have NO place in the argument about the >>>>>>morality >>>>>>of >>>>>>child slavery, no place at all.
>>>>> Maybe not,
>>>>You just flip-flopped
>>> I take more things into consideration than you can.
>>You take things into consideration irrationally and illegitimately because >>you have deluded yourself into believing something ridiculous, and you >>have >>defended it for so long you're stuck, similar to the ARA who is stuck by >>his >>history of irrational rhetoric.
> You believe elimination is the most ethical possible approach > and we both know it.
That is a non responsive strawman and you should know it.
>>>> but the certainly do in regards to animals raised >>>>> for food, there's no doubt about that.
>>>>No they don't,
>>> That's a lie and I know it's a lie.
>>There is no supportable reason to "consider" the life of an animal (aka >>the >>LoL) and not "consider" the life of a human.
> True. But since lives of any value are meaningless to you > that means you're incapable of appreciating the difference > between those of positive value and those of negative value for > any beings.
Another strawman. Equivocation and strawmen is all you have.
> . . . >>> The reason you don't want the >>> animals' lives taken into consideration is because that shines a >>> spotlight on what losers you people really are.
>>That's a strawman,
> It's the way it is and we both know it.
It's a confused strawman with an equivocation inside it. You are a hopeless mess.
|
