This is why it is a waste to argue with shit eating meat industry
shills like Leif Erikson - just make them eat their dirt

Leif Erikson wrote:
> gutlessly lied:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>****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 positivevalue.
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > This is why it is a waste to argue with shit eating meat industry
> > shills
>
> You're a gutless coward and shitbag and punk. You
> can't defend your position.