View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 09:51 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is ****wit David Harrison (Atlanta, GA) so horribly afraidto answer simple and good questions?

****wit David Harrison wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson Woods wrote:


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.


ACKNOWLEDGE it, ****wit: you weren't asking "aras",
you were asking OPPONENTS of "ar" who disagree with
your stupid, discredited, ****witted "animals getting
to experience life" bullshit. NOW, ****wit. We're
tired of waiting.




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.



There is nothing wrong with it


YOU believe there is something wrong with it, ****wit.
That's why you feel you need the mitigation. What do
you feel is wrong with it, ****wit? Don't lie and say
"nothing", ****wit: we all *know* you feel there is
something so wrong with it that you must offer
mitigation for doing it.



Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
somehow wrong,



How?


You're the one who thinks there's something wrong with
it, ****wit, so you tell us. What I believe is that
you feel exactly the affinity for animals that JethroFW
discusses, and this affinity makes you intuitively
believe that there's something morally bad about
killing them. Thus, you need mitigation for what
you're doing that you believe to be bad, and the
"getting to experience life" bullshit is what you could
develop.



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.



I don't see how it could be wrong


That's a lie. SOMEHOW, ****wit, you think it's at
least a little bit wrong. Think about it a bit more,
then get back to us.



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.


Answer the question, ****wit:

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

ANSWER it NOW, ****wit. Stop evading.



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.



You are an "ARA"


I am not an "ara", ****wit, and you have known I'm not
for the entire time that I've been highlighting your
stupidity: almost FIVE years.


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?



It can be good for them without being "better" for
them


Coming into existence is not "good" or "better" for any
living entity, ****wit. You know this. I have
explained it, and you know it. "Life" is not a
benefit, ****wit.

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.



Then it's not better for anything to live than not to live


THE END, ****wit. That's all. "[i]t's not better for
anything to live than not to live", ****wit, and you
have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it, ****wit:
you have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it NOW,
****wit.


Get out of these groups, ****wit. You have finally
conceded a LOSS on the ONLY point you ever wanted to
make. You failed to make it, and you lost. Get out.