On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>Goo 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 recognise a significant aspect of human influence on animals that
you don't want people to consider, ONLY because it suggests that
there are alternatives that could be considered ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination objective.

>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.

You are trying to defend ELIMINATION as always, this time
by contemptibly referring to ELIMINATION as liberation. LOL...
it's just another lie that you "aras" want people to believe.

>He can't understand that
>it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
>utility, nobody cares.

That's another lie.

>You're right, by imparting this false importance to
>their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position.

That's another lie, and that's more evidence that you're an
"ara". No one in favor of decent AW would have reason to lie
about what I point out, but someone in favor of "ar" would have,
and you do it constantly. In fact, here's one of the biggest lies
you have told:

"I will NOT quote a position as yours once you reject it" - Dutch

and it follows your familiar pattern of trying to grab credit
for something you don't deserve. Trying to gab browny
points by lying about yourself like that is undoubtedly on the
bottom...but it explains why you like being a gooboy too...