JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
legitimate questions.

Jethro wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
k.net...
JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
legitimate questions.

Jethro wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.


Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals.
Really....Love them.

Pale in Wales wrote:
Jethro wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.



Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals.
Really....Love them.

That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Pale in Wales wrote:
Jethro wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.



Maybe Jethro comes from Wales, where they love their animals.
Really....Love them.

That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.


http://images.google.com/images?q=jethro+hillbillies

I wont answer a question to a question (that's the domain of aresoles)

If you want the answer, then answer

JethroUK© wrote:
I wont answer a question to a question

Because you're a coward; because you know that
answering it puts you into an untenable position.
Okay, pal, have it your way - don't answer. I'll
provide your answers for you.


Q. Why does JethroFW think it's important to point out
that livestock only live because they are bred to
be used?


A. Because JethroFW thinks that he is doing some kind
of "good deed"
to animals by causing them to exist. JethroFW offers
his "good deed" as an attempt to mitigate the
moral harm
he feels he causes by killing the animals.


Q. When JethroFW asks,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

for whom or what might it be "better"?

A. JethroFW means better for the animal in question;
in other words,
JethroFW means that it is "better" for the animal,
which previously didn't exist, to "get to
experience life". JethroFW employs the discredited,
illogical
"logic of the larder".


Q. Why won't JethroFW answer these proper questions?

A. Because JethroFW knows that to answer them is to reveal
just how untenable his position is.

Well if you wont ask me a question - here's an easy one for you:

what is your (personal) moral stance on eating meat?

i'll try pretend i give a shit - just for the benefit of the argument & i
will warn you, you've already lost

"JethroUK©" wrote in message
news:x%upc.165$E9.120@newsfe1-win...
Well if you wont ask me a question - here's an easy one for you:

what is your (personal) moral stance on eating meat?

i'll try pretend i give a shit - just for the benefit of the argument & i
will warn you, you've already lost


Who needs a moral stance? We're carnivores. Ugh! Meat Good!

JethroUK© wrote:

Well if you wont ask me a question

I have asked you questions, JethroFW, several of them,
and you keep evading them and refusing to answer them.
They're good questions, too, and not particularly
difficult to answer...or, I wouldn't have thought they
were, prior to seeing the abject terror they seem to
produce in you.

Here they are again, JethroFW:

JethroFW wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

Here's my question, JethroFW: "better"/"more moral"
for whom or what? Please answer it without any more
evasion, JethroFW.

Here's another good and simple one, JethroFW: why do
you think it is important to draw attention to the
little factlette that livestock animals "only get to
live" because they are bred for us to use? I have
already acknowledged the factual basis of the
factlette, JethroFW; now I am asking you a good, simple
and legitimate question: why do you think the
factlette has any importance at all? Answer it,
JethroFW; the time for spinelessness is over.

That's baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.

but is it racist, or sheepist?

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
k.net...
: JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
: legitimate questions.
:
: Jethro wrote,
:
: "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
: raise it at all?"
:
: "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
: at all?"
:
: "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
: at all?"

It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
raise it to slaughter and eat. First it damages the human
spirit to eat other animals, IMO. Second meat is rather
unhealthy, isn't it.

not a philosopher wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
k.net...
: JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
: legitimate questions.
:
: Jethro wrote,
:
: "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
: raise it at all?"
:
: "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
: at all?"
:
: "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
: at all?"

It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
raise it to slaughter and eat. First it damages the human
spirit to eat other animals, IMO.

I fully disagree with your opinion, but it is at least
an honest opinion, and one that many millions of people
have shared.

It is obvious that JethroFW holds a diametrically
opposite opinion to yours: JethroFW believes it is
better that the livestock animals are born and "get to
experience life".

In my opinion, it simply isn't an issue. I don't view
human consumption of animals as in any way wrong or
corrosive to the human spirit, but I also don't believe
that animals "benefit" in any way from coming into
existence: existence _per se_ cannot be a "benefit".

Second meat is rather unhealthy, isn't it.

You mean *unhealthful*, not "unhealthy": if one eats
too many unhealthful things, one will BE unhealthy.

The answer is No, it is not intrinsically unhealthful.
Too much meat probably is, though.

not a philosopher wrote:

Hit send before finishing... sorry.

...
Second meat is rather unhealthy, isn't it.

It can be when eaten in excess, or when the wrong cuts are chosen. Lean meats
are suitable for a healthful diet. Some meats also have healthful benefits, such
as providing nutrients like CLA (lean beef and pork, game), omega-3 fatty acids
(fish, grass-fed beef, game), etc. See the links for more information.

http://www.mercola.com/beef/cla.htm
http://www.bikescor.com/BENEFITS%20O...FED%20BEEF.htm
http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cd...glossaryId=162

Don't make an error of generalization. Lean cuts are healthful and nutritious,
especially from wild game and grass-fed beef or bison. Fatty seafood like salmon
is also healthful, raising HDL (good cholesterol). On the flip side of your
argument, one can have an unhealthful vegetarian diet and be far worse off than
one who eats a healthful diet that includes even a lot of meat.

"not a philosopher" wrote in message
news:FvPpc.164748$f_5.142824@lakeread01...

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
k.net...
: JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
: legitimate questions.
:
: Jethro wrote,
:
: "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
: raise it at all?"
:
: "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
: at all?"
:
: "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
: at all?"

It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
raise it to slaughter and eat.

but if you are going to eat it anyway - it's better (for animalkind) to
raise it (than just wipe out the populous)


First it damages the human
spirit to eat other animals, IMO.

depends on the idividual - you cant speak for everyone

Second meat is rather
unhealthy, isn't it.


a healthy diet requires moderation in all foods

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
nk.net...
JethroUK© wrote:

"not a philosopher" wrote in message
news:FvPpc.164748$f_5.142824@lakeread01...

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.net...
: JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
: legitimate questions.
:
: Jethro wrote,
:
: "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
: raise it at all?"
:
: "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
: at all?"
:
: "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
: animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
: at all?"

It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
raise it to slaughter and eat.


but if you are going to eat it anyway - it's better (for animalkind)

No such thing.

Ok - it's better the animal world as a whole - is that easier for you to
grasp?




First it damages the human spirit to eat other animals, IMO.


depends on the idividual - you cant speak for everyone

You seem to think you can speak for all of
"animalkind", you idiot.


facts dear boy, are evident! - the gene pool alone benefits from a larger
populous - how much evidence would you like?