On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:50:55 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:28:12 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, dh@. quoted Goo revealing that
>>> quality of life doesn't matter to him:
>>>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
>You give the quality of their lives *zero* consideration, Goo.

Your quote above proves that quality means nothing to you, Goo.
.. . .
>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't *MEAN* anything" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't mean anything." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
.. . .
>>>>"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
>>>>existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
.. . .
>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>
>The part to which you give *no* consideration, Goo. I've proved it, via
>your own quotes.

I proved that you give no consideration to the part about quality of life by
posting your quotes Goob. You have confirmed that it means nothing to you, but I
proved it to begin with by quoting you specifically saying so.

>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>their deaths" - Goo