<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>Goo wrote in message
roups.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,

Yet you have never once been able to articulate what that significance is.

> ONLY because it suggests that
> there are alternatives that could be considered ethically equivalent
> or superior to the elimination objective.

No, because the facts you "point out" have no significance.

>>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.

There is nothing morally wrong with the the idea of eliminating livestock
species. Livestock species that existed in past years have been eliminated
by producers and replaced with other species, others will no doubt follow.

>
>>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.

No, it's a fact you don't like. Livestock animals have importance only
because we use them.

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

It's another fact, this time one you can't grasp. By insisting that the
lives of livestock animals have moral significance you lend credibility to
the AR position. Your little game backfires and you can't even see it.

> 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

So reject the Logic of the Larder and we can all move on.

> 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...

We don't deserve any brownie points for enabling livestock to experience
life. The idea has no place in the debate over animal use.