****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:03:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
> >>
> >>
> >> Like what?
> >
> >You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
> >unconceived farm animals are "something":
> >
> > The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> > are more than just "nothing" . . .
> > ****wit - 12/09/1999
>
> I'm revising it:
>
> The lives of potential future animals raised for food
> are more than just "nothing" in the sense

In the sense you believe they are SOMETHING. You believe they are
SOMETHING that can experience:

- loss: 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

- deprivation: What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 01/08/2002

- unfairness: What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999

You believe unconceived, non-existent farm animals can have enemies:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the worst
enemy that [unconceived] animals we raise for food
have IMO.
****wit - 09/13/1999

No revisions allowed, ****wit. You are on the record, and you are not
really revising your thinking, you're just trying for a cheap revision
to the wording to something that will make you look slightly less
idiotic.

It won't work, ****wit. I'm still here to remind people of the truth
about your ****witted beliefs.