On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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...
>
> He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
> argument back on them.

I told him that back in 1999.


> He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
> liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
> of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand that
> it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
> utility, nobody cares.

Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.


> You're right, by imparting this false importance to
> their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I emphasize
> *unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get a
> clue in order to be a half-wit.

Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.