View Single Post
  #1111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:38:38 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead
>> chicken, lied:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> you think "they", meaning non-existent imaginary
>>>> livestock, could somehow "benefit" by coming into
>>>> existence.
>>>
>>> Your obsession with "non-existent imaginary
>>> livestock"

>>
>> No - YOUR obsession with them, ****wit. You, ****wit, are the one who
>> "thinks" they are being "denied life" by "aras". That's absurd,
>> ****wit, but you think it, and there is no dispute that you think it.
>> We have your own posts to see that you think it, ****wit:
>>
>> That approach is illogical, since if it
>> is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
>> *far worse* to keep those same animals from
>> getting to have any life at all.
>> ****wit - 07/30/1999
>>
>> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
>> future farm animals [of] living,
>> ****wit - 01/08/2002
>>
>> What gives you the right to want to deprive
>> them [unborn animals] of having what life they
>> could have?
>> ****wit - 10/12/2001
>>
>> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
>> are more than just "nothing", because they
>> *will* be born unless something stops their
>> lives from happening. Since that is the case,
>> if something stops their lives from happening,
>> whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
>> them of the life they otherwise would have had.
>> ****wit - 12/09/1999
>>
>> Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
>> born if nothing prevents that from happening,
>> that would experience the loss if their lives
>> are prevented.
>> ****wit - 08/01/2000

>
>
> Then just explain HOW you think your
> "non-existent imaginary livestock"


No, Goo - *your* "non-existent imaginary livestock". You, Goo, are the
one who thinks the (merely potential) "lives" of "future farm animals"
merit any consideration. But you can't say *why* any consideration is
merited.


--
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