| Re: Affects on Animal evolution caused by Humans - CLICK HERE for the Pet Manual Forum Home Page |
| dh@. |
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.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:rriro157mho8fkv5qghq2ml8u1br0j42gu@4ax.com...
> 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.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:rriro157mho8fkv5qghq2ml8u1br0j42gu@4ax.com...
>> 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.
|
|
|
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote in message news:0qnuo15ih61j1m5cn7ledrep75ntoq69gq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:rriro157mho8fkv5qghq2ml8u1br0j42gu@4ax.com...
>>> 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.
|
|
|
| Leif Erikson |
****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:56:53 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
