On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:44:50 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:18:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>.
>>>On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>>
>>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and
>>>
>>>No, that isn't the question.
>>
>> That is ALL you care about Goober. You claim to eat meat:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>"I eat meat." - Goo
>>
>>"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
>>when I didn't." - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>while you maniacally oppose giving any consideration to the lives of the animals
>>you dishonestly imo claim you consume:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>The statements below are all true.
>>Message-ID: t>
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>You may or may not eat meat but I believe you're lying and that you're some sort
>>of veg*n eliminationist Goob. Whether you really do eat a tiny bit of meat from
>>time to time or whether you don't though Goober, we KNOW you don't give the
>>animals' lives any consideration and you are maniacally opposed to anyone else
>>considering the life of any animal raised for food:
>>
>>"no matter its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>All you claim to care about is the products with no consideration for the
>>animals' lives or the quality of their lives because and only because
>>considering that aspect works against elimination, Goo.
>
>No, *Gloo*. The question is if there is anything to "consider" about
>livestock animals "getting to experience life" versus never existing,
>and we have seen that the answer to the question is "no."

You don't have any idea how you could even pretend to have found that out
Goob. In contrast to that many animals certainly appear to benefit from lives of
positive value REGARDLESS of anything at all to do with "never existing". So
unless you can say what you want people to think prevents us from benefitting
from our lives, it will continue to appear clear that we do, Goo.