On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:15 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:56:01 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:24 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:37:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:05:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:20:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:34:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:44:48 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:38:03 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:47:39 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:29:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:15:49 -0800, Goo agreed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:16:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:23:26 -0800, Goo lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:36:27 -0800, Goo lied extremely blatantly:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:48:46 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:10 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, and I forgot James Hepler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? Are they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not all equal?" - James Hepler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Hepler told you your "animals getting to experience life" nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He asked if the lives of wildlife and domestic animals should not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>considered as equal Goob. That's what I suggest and what eliminationists and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Hepler told you point blank that your "getting to experience life"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bullshit was pure bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! A guy who asked "are they not all equal" supposedly is opposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>taking them into consideration. HILARIOUS! You are such a stupid Goober, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LOL!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>James Hepler did, of course, tell you your "animals getting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>experience life" story is bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive the benefit of getting to live
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think he disagrees with himself then Goo? Also Goober, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>animals or beings of any kind do you want us to think don't derive the benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>of getting to live, and why? Do you think any creatures DO derive the benefit of
>>>>>>>>>>>>getting to live Goob, and if so what do you think is the distinction between
>>>>>>>>>>>>them and livestock animals who you claim don't, do you have any idea?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>James Hepler told you point-blank your "at least they get to live"
>>>>>>>>>>>gibberish is bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They do live Goo. Billions of them. Some of them have lives of positive
>>>>>>>>>>value and some of negative value, but you people can't appreciate or even
>>>>>>>>>>acknowledge the difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No moral meaning to that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not to YOU Goo, but it has much meaning to people who honestly favor decent
>>>>>>>>AW over elimination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It has no meaning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo people who honestly believe decent AW is ethically equivalent or
>>>>>>superior to elimination have no reason to oppose taking those same lives and
>>>>>>potential lives into consideration, you stupid STUPID Goober.
>>>>>
>>>>>The animals "getting to experience life" has no moral meaning
>>>>
>>>> Of course it does Goo, and the fact that you have no clue how much it has is
>>>>something else that exposes you.
>>>
>>>No, it has no moral meaning *at all*, *Goo*. Everyone knows it -
>>>including you.
>>
>> It certainly has as much or more than their deaths Goob. ONLY
>>eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the animals' lives, Goo.
>
>No, it does not. It has *NO* meaning at all

It sure does Goob and ONLY eliminationists are in a position to be unable to
appreciate the fact. And then ONLY the very stupid eliminationists are unable to
recognise the meaning at all. The more intelligent ones would recognise it even
if they were not able to appreciate it, as most likely no eliminationists are or
they would be AW advocates instead of eliminationists, Goo.

>, *Goo* - zero. Their
>deaths *do* have some meaning, because ending a life is morally
>troubling.

LOL!!! It's hilarious in the most pathetic of ways that you find ending
something you consider to be meaningless also morally troubling, Goo. LOL...what
a true Goober you are Goob.

>Changing the course of action so that some animal lives
>don't happen is meaningless

That part we know you can comprehend Goo, but how it has meaning when they
DO LIVE is one of the aspects you people are unable to appreciate and some of
you can't even comprehend.