On May 31, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>
> oups.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.


When are you and Douche going into your Net-cop routine Goo?

Surely there must be some spelling felons you're just itchin' to ream
out.







- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -