On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:28:24 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-****ing
>cracker, stupidly blabbered:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2006 10:22:40 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>*WHY* does killing animals require mitigation, ****wit? Answer the
>>>question, ****wit. You believe it *does* require mitigation, and we
>>>want to know why. Answer.
>>
>>
>> Because of "aras" who insist that:
>
>No

Yes Goo, it is ONLY in response to people condemning some
wrongness, or evil moral harm... :
__________________________________________________ _______
"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

"having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does
not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the evil of killing it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than
ANY benefit" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
that mitigation ever need be considered and discussed, my Goober.