On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
> >>the livestock exist.
>
> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>
> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.

Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.

****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs who
> say that it's cruel to raise livestock.

Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...