View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 11:03 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is ****wit David Harrison (Atlanta, GA) so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT, the Gonad wrote:

Mr. David Harrison wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson (the Gonad) Woods wrote:


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


I'm not doing anything Gonad. And what other people
are doing, would be done even if I had never been
born. Nope, that's not it either.

that you believe to be bad, and the
"getting to experience life" bullshit is what you could
develop.


They do experience life Gonad. Billions of them are
doing it right now.

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.


Nah, I haven't found it yet.

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",


Yes you are Gonad.

****wit, and you have known I'm not


How could I know that, when no one has ever been able
to provide an example of your opposition to it?

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"


So far it has been for me.

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",


It's still good for some things to live imo. Gonad. You moron!
It is not good for you to live. It is not good for your son to live.
It is good for some farm animals to live. It is not good for some
farm animals 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.


Gonad. It's your turn AGAIN, to slink away from the
question. And there is a "better" in your case, because
you "ARAs" think it would be better to stop raising them.

For whom or what would it be better to stop raising them?

(prediction: the Gonad will not answer the question, because
the answer is that it would be better for people who are
disturbed by humans eating meat.

note: he has proven me right once at the time of this post)