On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh explained:

>>Dutch amusingly "thought":

>>>dh pointed out:

[...]
>> At first honest "ARAs" were all in my ass about it,
>
>EVERYONE told you you're full of shit

No one has provided a good reason for not giving the animals'
lives as much consideration as their deaths Goo. Only "aras" have
even made the futile attempt, except for Swamp who used only
"ar" arguments, so he doesn't count for anything. Rick doesn't agree
that we should, but he hasn't tried to give good reason why we
should not. Ward Clark didn't agree that we should, and I damned
sure wanted to learn what his objections are, but he never provided
any. No one has a good reason not to Goo. Not even you.

[...]
>>>>"Contributing to decent AW" proves that I take quality of life into
>>>>consideration. You and the Goober are lying when you say otherwise.
>>
>>>That fact does not come with a any moral significance, if it did, that
>>>would lead to a very strong case IN FAVOUR OF AR, not against
>>>it.
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes.

I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths, and/or
how doing so could possibly be a very strong case in favor of
their elimination. Can any of you do better than the Goos?