View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 09:14 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods wrote:


wrote:


On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods wrote:



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?


I've asked you "ARAs"


No.


more than once for whom or what it would
be better not to raise animals to eat.


They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals



And exactly why is that?


Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
wrong, not I.

Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
somehow wrong, so much so that you have offered the
"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.



they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
your answer.



You didn't answer the question.


It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
been asked of JethroFW and you:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?

Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
Then, maybe, someone will address your question.



Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
yourself to people who are NOT "aras".



Most of the time I'm addressing


People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
"aras", ****wit.


Most of the
time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
life" nonsense.

Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
living,



And I asked who would benefit if they are.


Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
answered my question. You will not evade my question
by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
my question:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
"better" for the currently non-existent animals
themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
"better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.