On 31 May 2007 13:04:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>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

That's a fantasy of yours, and it's something else you can't
explain Goober. I challenge you to try to explain exactly
WHICH particular potential future livestock you are stupidly
attempting to insist I think "ought" to exist. You can't do it
Goob, because the concept itself is so stupid that even you
can't clarify it enough to attempt to support your own
stupid, dishonest accusation. You have proven yourself
a liar once again by your own ineptitued, Goo.