On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:10:15 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:55:09 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and more
>>>>>>>>precisely to oppose your view
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In other words, you're a shit-stirring sophist and
>>>>>>>liar. But we already knew that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>i dont need to lie (and haven't) to deliberately oppose your view
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you didn't need to do, but you have done. You
>>>>>are a liar and a shit-stirring sophist, and you don't
>>>>>even believe your own bullshit. You're absurdly
>>>>>enamored of what you stupidly believe to be your
>>>>>fluency in philosophical matters. Take it from me,
>>>>>****tard: you are incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Haven't lied once
>>>
>>>You've lied by omission a dozen or more times.
>>>
>>>
>>>>- You 'believe' eating animals is wrong
>>>
>>>That's your fundamental error, and if you can't get the
>>>basics right, you have no hope with the big stuff. I
>>>do NOT believe eating animals is wrong.
>>
>>
>> Yes you do.
>
>No, I don't, ****wit. You're just wrong.
>
>> You believe that their
>> lives mean nothing,
>
>Irrelevant. Their lives DON'T mean anything,

Not to you "ARAs". Only their deaths mean anything
you.

>at least
>not in the ****witted, WRONG way you believe they do.
>That is EXACTLY one of the reasons I don't believe
>eating them is wrong. How *could* it be wrong, if
>their lives don't mean anything.
>
>> but their deaths are very significant.
>
>No. I do not consider their deaths of any particular
>significance.

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it."

>"aras" do, but I'm not an "ara", as you
>have always known.
>
>> You have no opposition to "AR",
>
>False. I am strenuously and unalterably opposed to
>"ar",

But you can't present any of your opposition.