FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

George Plimpton

On 5/16/2004 1:41 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>>>> legitimate questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jethro wrote,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>>>>> raise it at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>>>> "better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

Like ****wit, Jethro****wit couldn't answer.

>>>>>
>>>>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>>>>
>>>> No.

*Still* no.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> more than once for whom or what it would
>>>>> be better not to raise animals to eat.
>>>>
>>>> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals
>>>
>>>
>>> And exactly why is that?
>>
>> Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
>> wrong, not I.
>
> There is nothing wrong with it Prof. Woods. We have established
> that.

I don't believe there is, ****wit, but *you* certainly haven't
established any such thing.

>> Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
>> somehow wrong, so much so that you have offered the
>> "getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.

*You* think it's wrong to kill livestock animals, ****wit, but you think
you mitigate that harm by the silly fiction that "at least the animals
'get to experience life'."

It's no mitigation at all, ****wit - their "getting to experience life"
is meaningless.

>> Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
>> so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
>> Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
>> is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.
>
> Let's see...how could I think it's wrong? Because it
> provides them with life? No, that's not it. Because it
> means less life for them? No, it means more life for them.
> Hmmm....how is it wrong? I don't see how it could be
> wrong Prof. Woods.

You *do* think it's wrong, ****wit, but you think the wrong is somehow
mitigated by the "gift of life." There is no "gift of life", ****wit.
"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit or gift to livestock, ****wit.

>>>> they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>> your answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>
>> It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
>> your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
>> are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
>> been asked of JethroFW and you:
>>
>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>> if animals come into existence?
>>
>> Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>> Then, maybe, someone will address your question.

As expected, ****wit didn't answer. That's because he can't, and he
knows he can't.

>>>
>>>> Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>>>> yourself to people who are NOT "aras".
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of the time I'm addressing
>>
>> People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
>> "aras", ****wit.
>
> You are an "ARA" Prof. Woods.

No, ****wit. You know that none of the people you accused of being
"ara" moles ever were "aras". You know that, ****wit.

>
>>>> Most of the
>>>> time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>>>> who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>>>> life" nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>>>> loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>>>> living,
>>>
>>>
>>> And I asked who would benefit if they are.
>>
>> Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
>> answered my question. You will not evade my question
>> by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
>> my question:
>>
>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>> if animals come into existence?
>
> It can be good for them without being "better" for
> them Prof. Woods.

No, ****wit. "Getting to experience life" is not "good" for any
domestic livestock, ****wit. It has no meaning to them at all, ****wit.

> A decent life is good for those who have
> one imo,

Only in comparison to a bad life, ****wit. "Getting to experience life"
in the first place is meaningless, ****wit.

>> ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
>> "better" for the currently non-existent animals
>> themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
>> have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
>> "better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
>> can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.
>
> Then it's not better for anything to live than not to live
> Prof. Woods, so it's not "better" for livestock to live than not
> to.

So why have you been pretending you never wrote this for the last eight
years, ****wit?