Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:

> 2nd Bleeding Hemorrhoid lied:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> 2nd Bleeding Hemorrhoid lied:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>> have to understand that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>> First
>>>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>> care of?
>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>> years old.
>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>> Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>> well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>> nothing,
>
> That's the deal.

No, Goo. It's no "deal". There is no "choice"
presented to any animal before it's born: "Okay, you
can have two years of existence on earth, and then
you're killed; or you can 'get' no existence on earth."

But thanks again for confirming, you stupid ****wit,
that you believe these non-existent animals actually
"pre-exist" and are offered a "deal".


> It needs to be clarified because some
> people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
> they would or could be born as some happy wild animal

No, *NO* one believes that or "acts like" that. Your
English is simply awful - truly wretched bullshit.
Tell us again what your terminal level of education
was, Goo/****wit. It was only high school at best, right?


>> as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>> 2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>
> There is when they do.

Animals are not "better off" for living, Goo/****wit.
Better off than what? You're ****ed, Goo/****wit.


>> i'm correcting you
>
> Not yet you sure aren't.

He most certainly is, Goo/****wit.


>> and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>> is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>
> I know.

You *don't* know, you lying goober. You believe,
stupidly and wrongly, that an animal is "better off"
*MERELY* for having come into existence. This is
established beyond any doubt.


> What you need to do is explain how that prevents
> existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.

No, he doesn't need to do any such thing, you lying
cracker. For one thing, the phrase is empty bullshit.