Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:26:05 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On May 31, 11:50 am, > wrote:
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>>>>> the livestock exist.
>>>>
>>>>> If you think you have any clue about any of this
>>>>
>>>> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
>>>> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
>>>> Zero.
>>>
>>> Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
>>> their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>>>
>>> ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
>>> to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
>>> eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
>>> worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
>>> has. No one ever will.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
>>>> who say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
>>>
>>> Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
>>> acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...
>>
>> He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
>> argument back on them.
>
> I recognise a significant aspect of human influence on animals

No.


>
>> He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
>> liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
>> of the very species of animals you are liberating.
>
> You are trying to defend ELIMINATION as always

He's not. He's simply pointing out - yes! - that people who want to
eliminate livestock animals are *not* failing to give adequate
consideration to anything that is owed consideration.


>> He can't understand that
>> it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
>> utility, nobody cares.
>
> That's another lie.

No, it's not a lie. It *doesn't* matter if livestock exist, apart from
their utility to humans; and you *don't* understand that it doesn't matter.


>
>> You're right, by imparting this false importance to
>> their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position.
>
> That's another lie

It's not a lie.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs