****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>>On 10 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>>>
>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
>>>_______________________________________________ __________
>>>From: "Dutch" >
>>>Message-ID: >
>>>
>>>The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
>
>
> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.

gibberish


>
>
>>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I point
>>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
>
>
> No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is better
> than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive value.

No, he doesn't need to explain it, ****wit, because it
isn't his position, and also because you aren't in
favor of "aw". You don't CARE about animal welfare at
all, ****wit, and we all know it. All you care about
is if livestock exist, period.


>>> When not, can you explain why we should disregard the
>>>fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths:
>>>_______________________________________________ __________
>>>From: Goo
>>>Message-ID: .net>
>>>
>>>the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>>consideration, and gets it.
>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>of billions of animals?
>>
>>Whatever number.
>
>
> Regardless of number, you have never been able to provide a reason
> why we should disregard these facts

It is not a "fact" that livestock animals "benefit" by
coming into existence, ****wit. They do not.