On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:02:30 +0100, "Flower of romance" > wrote:

>
>"marques de sade" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:44:06 -0100, David <dh@.> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Smartypants"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 4, 4:45 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
>>>>> and presented no challenge:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker -
>>>>> >> lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> You have never even indicated that you can comprehend
>>>>> >>> my view of animals
>>>>> >> I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully
>>>>> >> explained
>>>>>
>>>>> >> the wrongness of it. It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: fits
>>>>> >> you
>>>>> >> like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. You do not understand
>>>>> >> animals, Goo.
>>>>> >> You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and
>>>>> >> WRONG view
>>>>> >> of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker.
>>>>>
>>>>> > LOL! You have never indicated that you can,
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker.
>>>>> I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When did you do that? How come no one saw it?
>>>
>>> And most curiously: Why can't he produce any example(s) of
>>>him doing it? All he can produce is examples of him lying about
>>>it...not refuting it or even trying...just lying. As yet he has never,
>>>in all these years, even acknowledged what I believe. If he ever
>>>does, only then can he begin the what I consider to be futile
>>>task of trying to refute it. Maybe the Goober has enough sense
>>>to know he can't refute it either, and maybe that's why he's never
>>>going to make the attempt.
>>
>> who cares... shut the **** up, all of you...
>
>There you have it, boys and girls. Proof of what happens when you throw a
>collective of people into the mix.

Goo is opposed to anything that suggests some options could
be ethically equivalent or superior to the objective to eliminate
all domestic animals, which hides beneath the gross mi$nomer
of "animal rights". Since I point out that providing decent lives
for them by providing decent animal welfare might be better
than preventing domestic animals from living, Goo and his fellow
eliminationists feel they have to oppose anything that threatens
the idea that the elimimation objective is the most ethical approach
that humans can take. Anything that encourages appreciation for
some livestock having lives of positive value is a direct enemy of
advocates of the misnomer.