On Mar 24, 10:50*am, dh@. wrote:
> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> whatever" - Goo
>
> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> of consideration." - Goo
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
> moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>
> "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
> that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
> consideration" - Goo
>
> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>
> "Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo
>
> "Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo
>
> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
> a benefit at all" - Goo
>
> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
> existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
>
> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
> *IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo
>
> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
> existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>
> "IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
> aspects of their lives." - Goo
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>
> "We are not and never were talking about benefits for
> existing entities" - Goo
>
> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>
> "Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>
> "I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo
>
> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
> existence we know" - Goo
>
> "I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo
>
> "we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo
>
> "the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
> deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>
> "Intent doesn't matter" - Goo
>
> "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
> consideration." - Goo




"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo


"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo


ROTFLMAO!!

Poor stupid Goo.;o)