T. Howard Pines, Jr.
11/24/2010 7:42:00 PM
On 11/24/2010 11:36 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:52:38 -0700, "Dutch"<no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> "Chom Noamksy"<blahblah@blahblah.blah> wrote in message
>> news:ocWdncEk8cR8jFTRnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 10/27/2010 10:14 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> "Chom Noamksy"<blahblah@blahblah.blah> wrote
>>>>> On 10/27/2010 12:50 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>>>>>> There has to be something a bit "special" about people who
>>>>>>> put their faith in the gross mi$nomer "animal rights", since for
>>>>>>> one thing it wouldn't mean better lives, longer lives, rights, or
>>>>>>> anything at all for domestic animals. Instead it would eliminate
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not insightful, clever, interesting, important or relevant in
>>>>>> any way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone reading your posts goes "huh?", scratches his head, says,
>>>>>> "Another usenet fuckwit." and moves on to an intelligent comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a valid point. Millions of domestic animals exist because we
>>>>> want them to.
>>>>
>>>> It's true, but not worth mentioning. It has no place in a discussion
>>>> about the morality of raising livestock. To put it another way, if we
>>>> did NOT raise livestock no animal would be harmed in any way, we acquire
>>>> no moral advantage by doing so.
>>>
>>> The human animal would be harmed because it would lose a great source of
>>> food and nourishment that billions of us depend on. If you open your
>>> mouth you'll notice a set of incisors, followed by a set of canines,
>>> followed by a set of premolars, followed by a set of molars. The incisors
>>> and canines are specifically designed for eating meat meat meat. The
>>> premolar and molars are useful for holding a chunk of meat while severing
>>> it with your incisors and canines. The molars and premolars also happen
>>> to be good for processing non-animal foods. Now have a look at your
>>> brain, the majority ingredient being protein. That brain was only made
>>> possible by a high protein diet. Eating a high-protein diet is what
>>> boosted the intellectual capacity of humans from monkey to king ape.
>>> Since meat has one of the highest protein contents of common human foods
>>> we must have eaten a looooot of meat during our evolution, and its far
>>> easier to secure a supply of high value protein raising domestic animals,
>>> rather than go chasing wild ones all the time.
>>
>> OK, I am a meat eater, I love meat and eat it every day.
>
> I doubt that.
You have no valid reason to doubt it.
>
>> I'm not disputing
>> the utility to humans of raising animals. It's a useful activity and
>> perfectly moral and right, provided the animals are not caused undue
>> suffering.
>>
>> But that's not what I'm talking about, the issue is an esoteric one, not
>> easily seen at first glance.
>
> You mean sometimes you have a difficult time persuading
> people to believe they should refuse to give the animals' lives
> as much or more consideration
There is no consideration to be given. It is not "good" for the animals
to come into existence, versus never existing, and no one is doing
anything "bad" to any animals by not wanting any more domestic animals
to exist.
Your "consideration" is non-existent. It's a shabby rationalization,
nothing more. You feel the need to rationalize the fact that you kill
animals, but your rationalization is empty.
>
>> dh@ contends that since livestock "experience
>> life" due to human's demand for animal products we are doing something
>> admirable by "providing them with life".
>
> ONLY when
Never. It is *never* a benefit to the animals to cause them to live,
and therefore nothing admirable is being done by breeding domestic
animals into existence - never.
>> I am saying that is a circular and
>> self-serving sophistic argument.
>
> When the truth is
The truth is that your argument is nothing but self-serving sophistry,
and a *failed* attempt at rationalizing something that, for some reason,
causes you to feel ashamed.
>> He even attacks vegetarians because their
>> diets don't support these livestock lives.
>
> I point out that
You point out nothing.
>
>> That's why I call him a fuckwit.
>
> You call me a fuckwit because
Because you're a self-serving, sophistry-spouting, lying fuckwit.
That's the reason he and lots of others call you a fuckwit. There is no
logic behind your belief and conclusion. There's nothing but
self-serving sophistry.