>>>>You are accepting the basic premise of AR when you should be rejecting >>>>it,
>>> I do in most cases. Not necessarily in the case of battery >>> hens in general though...I believe it might be better if animals >>> never live to be kept in such conditions. There are others, but >>> you can't relate to any so you now claim.
>>>>you fool.
>>>>The reason you are forced to resort to the circular sophistry of >>>>the LoL is that you have fumbled the ball right off the snap.
>>> I'm aware that:
>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>> which means that each situation must NECESSARILY be taken into >>> consideration before an evaluation can be made. LOL!!! You >>> parroted that idea you heard somewhere, but hilariously had no >>> idea what you were actually writing when you posted it here. >>> LOL!........and obviously you still don't.
>>I give up, you're too deeply hooked on the LoL to ever see what a sham it >>is.
>>>>You are accepting the basic premise of AR when you should be rejecting >>>>it,
>>> I do in most cases. Not necessarily in the case of battery >>> hens in general though...I believe it might be better if animals >>> never live to be kept in such conditions. There are others, but >>> you can't relate to any so you now claim.
>>>>you fool.
>>>>The reason you are forced to resort to the circular sophistry of >>>>the LoL is that you have fumbled the ball right off the snap.
>>> I'm aware that:
>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>> which means that each situation must NECESSARILY be taken into >>> consideration before an evaluation can be made. LOL!!! You >>> parroted that idea you heard somewhere, but hilariously had no >>> idea what you were actually writing when you posted it here. >>> LOL!........and obviously you still don't.
>>I give up, you're too deeply hooked on the LoL to ever see what a sham it >>is.
> Ah, so I was right. You never did understand it when you made > claims like that in the past. Do you even know where you got the > idea from in the first place, and why you ever presented it as if > you understood and agreed with it?
It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the Logic of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, who provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's owner any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life. You see everything through the same prism, and you're getting worse all the time.
>>>>>You are accepting the basic premise of AR when you should be rejecting >>>>>it,
>>>> I do in most cases. Not necessarily in the case of battery >>>> hens in general though...I believe it might be better if animals >>>> never live to be kept in such conditions. There are others, but >>>> you can't relate to any so you now claim.
>>>>>you fool.
>>>>>The reason you are forced to resort to the circular sophistry of >>>>>the LoL is that you have fumbled the ball right off the snap.
>>>> I'm aware that:
>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life >>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>> which means that each situation must NECESSARILY be taken into >>>> consideration before an evaluation can be made. LOL!!! You >>>> parroted that idea you heard somewhere, but hilariously had no >>>> idea what you were actually writing when you posted it here. >>>> LOL!........and obviously you still don't.
>>>I give up, you're too deeply hooked on the LoL to ever see what a sham it >>>is.
>> Ah, so I was right. You never did understand it when you made >> claims like that in the past. Do you even know where you got the >> idea from in the first place, and why you ever presented it as if >> you understood and agreed with it?
>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the Logic >of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, who >provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or >suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's owner >any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend: Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't get it.
>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the >>Logic >>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, who >>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or >>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's >>owner >>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend: > Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either > like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is > consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't > get it.
Consideration is NOT consideration, there are different meanings for the word.
It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish to withhold "consideration" (thinking).
You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either deliberately and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that God is an unproven concept does not require faith, beyond a much different and more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is essentially as science and our perceptions make it appear.
>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that >>>>>>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration >>>>>>> Why do I need to explain >>>>>> So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying >>>>>> to >>>>>> talk >>>>>> about if anything, >>>>> He knows ehat he's talking about. Just because you don't know what he's >>>>> talking about then that would indicate that either he's not explaining >>>>> himself very well >>>> He has never provided a single decent reason why a person >>>> should feel that it's ethically superior to refuse to consider >>>> the lives of other creatures than it is to consider them. Maybe >>>> you can help him explain why you people think it's superior, but >>>> I seriously doubt you can even make an attempt. I do however >>>> challenge you to try, so TRY!!!: >>> I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. >> Yet your love for "Dutch"
> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The question > was, > "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. Perhaps > you > can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
> This is not a love song wrote: >> <dh@.> wrote in message >> news:q4gmd5tngojh88m03f2d19mrbqctej2iji@4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:37:19 +0100, "This is not a love song" >>> <P...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>>>>>>> You still need to explain why you think people should feel that >>>>>>>>> anticonsideration is superior to having consideration >>>>>>>> Why do I need to explain >>>>>>> So another person can get an idea of what you think you're trying >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> talk >>>>>>> about if anything, >>>>>> He knows ehat he's talking about. Just because you don't know what >>>>>> he's >>>>>> talking about then that would indicate that either he's not >>>>>> explaining >>>>>> himself very well >>>>> He has never provided a single decent reason why a person >>>>> should feel that it's ethically superior to refuse to consider >>>>> the lives of other creatures than it is to consider them. Maybe >>>>> you can help him explain why you people think it's superior, but >>>>> I seriously doubt you can even make an attempt. I do however >>>>> challenge you to try, so TRY!!!: >>>> I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. >>> Yet your love for "Dutch"
>> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The question >> was, >> "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. Perhaps >> you >> can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
> Are you posting drunk?
Nope, I post messages. Maybe you should leave off the crack.
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote >>> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The >>> question was, >>> "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. >>> Perhaps you >>> can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
>> Are you posting drunk?
> Nope, I post messages. Maybe you should leave off the crack.
He's just trying to be clever to hide that fact that he doesn't know what you're talking about >:)
>>>> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The >>>> question was, >>>> "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. >>>> Perhaps you >>>> can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
>>> Are you posting drunk?
>> Nope, I post messages. Maybe you should leave off the crack.
> He's just trying to be clever to hide that fact that he doesn't know what > you're talking about >:)
A common occurance on usenet. :) Still the guy's got to have a hobby.
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:50:26 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote: ><dh@.> wrote
>>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the >>>Logic >>>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, who >>>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or >>>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's >>>owner >>>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
>> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend: >> Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either >> like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is >> consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't >> get it.
>Consideration is NOT consideration,
That's a blatant lie.
>there are different meanings for the >word.
>It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish to >withhold "consideration" (thinking).
>You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either deliberately >and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no >scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that God >is an unproven concept does not require faith,
In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person does or does not believe it.
>beyond a much different and >more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is essentially >as science and our perceptions make it appear.
Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>>>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the >>>>Logic >>>>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, >>>>who >>>>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or >>>>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's >>>>owner >>>>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
>>> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend: >>> Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either >>> like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is >>> consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't >>> get it.
>>Consideration is NOT consideration,
> That's a blatant lie.
>>there are different meanings for the >>word.
>>It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish to >>withhold "consideration" (thinking).
>>You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either >>deliberately >>and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
>>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no >>scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that God >>is an unproven concept does not require faith,
> In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that > God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person > does or does not believe it.
>>beyond a much different and >>more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is >>essentially >>as science and our perceptions make it appear.
> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that > faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not > consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
> <dh@.> wrote >> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that >> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not >> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no >>scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that God >>is an unproven concept does not require faith,
> In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that > God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person > does or does not believe it.
You're too stupid to live. Believing in unproven concepts is faith, not believing in unproven concepts is just rationality.
>>>>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the >>>>>Logic >>>>>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, >>>>>who >>>>>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care or >>>>>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's >>>>>owner >>>>>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
>>>> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend: >>>> Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either >>>> like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is >>>> consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't >>>> get it.
>>>Consideration is NOT consideration,
>> That's a blatant lie.
>>>there are different meanings for the >>>word.
>>>It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish >>>to >>>withhold "consideration" (thinking).
>>>You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either >>>deliberately >>>and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
> Which is it?
>>>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no >>>scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that >>>God >>>is an unproven concept does not require faith,
>> In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that >> God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person >> does or does not believe it.
>>>beyond a much different and >>>more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is >>>essentially >>>as science and our perceptions make it appear.
>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that >> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not >> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
> You're a retard.
"Retard" means slow, that is that retards eventually get it. dh doesn't beleive that bull he's spouting. He's a troll with the intent of offending. So he will never get your arguments. Retards are usually decent people. Trolls have no such luxury.
>>>>>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the >>>>>>Logic >>>>>>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's owner, >>>>>>who >>>>>>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care >>>>>>or >>>>>>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's >>>>>>owner >>>>>>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
>>>>> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend: >>>>> Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either >>>>> like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is >>>>> consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't >>>>> get it.
>>>>Consideration is NOT consideration,
>>> That's a blatant lie.
>>>>there are different meanings for the >>>>word.
>>>>It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish >>>>to >>>>withhold "consideration" (thinking).
>>>>You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either >>>>deliberately >>>>and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
>> Which is it?
>>>>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no >>>>scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that >>>>God >>>>is an unproven concept does not require faith,
>>> In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that >>> God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person >>> does or does not believe it.
>>>>beyond a much different and >>>>more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is >>>>essentially >>>>as science and our perceptions make it appear.
>>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that >>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not >>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>> You're a retard.
> "Retard" means slow, that is that retards eventually get it. dh doesn't > beleive that bull he's spouting. He's a troll with the intent of > offending. So he will never get your arguments. Retards are usually decent > people. Trolls have no such luxury.
>>>>>>>It's a simple statement about animal welfare, it does not promote the >>>>>>>Logic >>>>>>>of the Larder. The components of the statement are the animal's >>>>>>>owner, who >>>>>>>provides the care, and the animal who either benefits from good care >>>>>>>or >>>>>>>suffers from poor care. Nowhere does the statement grant the animal's >>>>>>>owner >>>>>>>any moral victory due to the animal getting to experience life.
>>>>>> Here's another simple fact you won't be able to comprehend: >>>>>> Positive if positive. You won't be able to comprehend that either >>>>>> like you can't comprehend the fact that: Consideration is >>>>>> consideration, or the fact that: Faith is faith... You just can't >>>>>> get it.
>>>>>Consideration is NOT consideration,
>>>> That's a blatant lie.
>>>>>there are different meanings for the >>>>>word.
>>>>>It is selfish to withhold "consideration" (kindness), it is not selfish >>>>>to >>>>>withhold "consideration" (thinking).
>>>>>You are engaging in equivocation between these meanings, either >>>>>deliberately >>>>>and dishonestly or through plain stupidity.
>>> Which is it?
>>>>>Faith also has different meanings. To believe in God when there is no >>>>>scientific evidence of his existence requires "faith". To believe that >>>>>God >>>>>is an unproven concept does not require faith,
>>>> In contrast to that lie: The amount of fait a person has that >>>> God is an unproven concept is what determines how much a person >>>> does or does not believe it.
>>>>>beyond a much different and >>>>>more basic meaning of the word, which is faith that the world is >>>>>essentially >>>>>as science and our perceptions make it appear.
>>>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that >>>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not >>>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>>> You're a retard.
>> "Retard" means slow, that is that retards eventually get it. dh doesn't >> beleive that bull he's spouting. He's a troll with the intent of >> offending. So he will never get your arguments. Retards are usually >> decent people. Trolls have no such luxury.
>>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that >>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not >>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>> You're a retard.
>"Retard" means slow, that is that retards eventually get it. dh doesn't >beleive that bull he's spouting.
I believe faith is faith, that consideration is consideration, and that your buddy is lying when he says they're not. I also believe he lies A LOT!!!
>He's a troll with the intent of offending.
People lie to and sometimes about me, I point it out to them, and they get offended. LOL! I imagine when you steal from people and they suspect that you did it, you get offended then too.
>>>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that >>>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not >>>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>>> You're a retard.
>>"Retard" means slow, that is that retards eventually get it. dh doesn't >>beleive that bull he's spouting.
> I believe faith is faith, that consideration is > consideration,
Like I beleive you are a troll and that I consider that you are a troll.
>and that your buddy is lying
Conjecture
>>He's a troll with the intent of offending.
> People lie to and sometimes about me,
You lie about you too especially when you try to make us beleive that your intention here is anything other than to troll.
>>>> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The >>>> question was, >>>> "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. >>>> Perhaps you >>>> can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
>>> Are you posting drunk?
>> Nope, I post messages. Maybe you should leave off the crack.
> He's just trying to be clever to hide that fact that he doesn't know > what you're talking about >:)
No, I'm just wondering why every other word is incorrectly spelled.
>> <dh@.> wrote >>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that >>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not >>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>> You're a retard.
> No offense to self-respecting retards..
You don't think responding to yourself is a bit retarded?
>>>>> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The >>>>> question was, >>>>> "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. >>>>> Perhaps you >>>>> can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
>>>> Are you posting drunk?
>>> Nope, I post messages. Maybe you should leave off the crack.
>> He's just trying to be clever to hide that fact that he doesn't know what >> you're talking about >:)
> No, I'm just wondering why every other word is incorrectly spelled.
Who cares about spelling? What about the topic under discussion? Not the "Subject:", that hasn't been the topic of discussion for at least a month or two.
>>>>> Your attempt to evade the questionb has not gone unnotticed. The >>>>> question was, >>>>> "I don't recall caliming that i thought it is ethically superior. >>>>> Perhaps you >>>>> can point out where I said that but I doubt it.
>>>> Are you posting drunk?
>>> Nope, I post messages. Maybe you should leave off the crack.
>> He's just trying to be clever to hide that fact that he doesn't know what >> you're talking about >:)
> No, I'm just wondering why every other word is incorrectly spelled.
Predictable, totally predictable. A sad response on you part.
>>> <dh@.> wrote >>>> Faith is faith, though it's no suprise that you're lying that >>>> faith is not faith just as you lie that consideration is not >>>> consideration. You sure do lie a LOT!!!
>>> You're a retard.
>> No offense to self-respecting retards..
> You don't think responding to yourself is a bit retarded?
Not nearly as retarded as your asinine approach to the subject of specieisism which you stumbled into and are floundering around in like a brain damaged donkey.
|
