|
|
|
|
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.
|