On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:49:20 GMT, Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>> On 17 May 2007 12:36:45 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> dh pointed out:
>>>> On 15 May 2007 17:30:18 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh pointed out:

>>>>>> The fact that you can't even begin to explain how or why any
>>>>>> of what I pointed out is "wrong",

>>>>> Been explained literally thousands of time, by literally dozens of
>>>>> people.

>>>> Yet not a single example

>>> Yes, there are. Look harder. Stop lying, and look harder.
>>
>> Since you are terrified to try to answer, let's look for information
>>about your cowardice Goo... Hey, look Goober, there is something:
>>
>>" Goobernicus Gonad--the moron who thinks he's a genius
>>and enjoys being referred to simply as "Goo"--has proven
>>himself an incredible coward. He has done that by cowardly
>>declining to answer questions and perform things which he
>>has boasted of being able to do. Some of the things he is
>>afraid to even attempt include:
>>
>>1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
>> can not experience
>>
>>2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights
>>
>>3. providing any opposition at all to "AR"
>>
>>4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living
>>
>>5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life
>>
>>6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are
>> disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit
>> from their elimination objective
>>
>> In reply to requests regarding clarification of these most
>>significant issues which Goobernicus has lied about repeatedly,
>>he has been able to do nothing but cowardly crawl away from
>>any attempt to explain,"
>>
>>Wow, whoever wrote that sure knows you well, Goo! That
>>is you to a T, and the thread is even titled "The Cowardice
>>of Goo". The op apparently knows you very well Goobs but
>>you're certainly more lame than that, so let's look further to
>>see if examples of more of your lameness are available... Yes!
>>This is excellent Goob! The op quite considerately updated
>>your cowardice postings more than once. Check out what else
>>you are afraid to try attempt, Goo:
>>
>>7. describe any emotion(s) through language
>>
>>8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to
>> better lives for food animals.
>>
>>9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience
>> than another.
>>
>>10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans and
>> other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.
>>
>>11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and
>> disappointment, if there are any.
>>
>>12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative
>> to the elimination of domestic animals.
>>
>>13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be experiencing
>> certain emotions, under conditions which could easily trigger those
>> particular emotions, if it is not those particular emotions.
>>
>>14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.
>>
>>15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get
>> from a dog.
>>
>>16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from experience
>> with animals.
>>
>>17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for food
>> than the experiencing of their lives.
>
>Stop ****ing around and mangling posts and look harder,
>****wit.

I presented 17 excellent examples Goo. Just as you were completely
inept when that convenient post was made 2 years ago, you are still
completely inept as I continue to point out today. When we look back
as you insist, all we can find is more and more proof of your ineptitude.
.. . .
>>>>>> What do you have to oppose consideration of the animals' lives?

>>>>> There is no REASON to give any moral consideration to whether or not
>>>>> they exist.

>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to

>>> No. It is not necessary for anything.
>>
>> Obviously not for anything you are capable of. That means that anything
>>it is necessary for, you are not capable of even comprehending. You people
>>are placing an incredibly heavy limitation on yourselves, and as always it
>>leaves us with the question of: Why?
>
>There is nothing of which you are capable that I am
>not,

Let's again prove you wrong Goober. Try to explain in what way(s)
livestock lives are meaningful:

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful *IF* the
livestock exist. " - Goo

if you can. But you cannot Goobs, because you are completely inept
as you consistently demonstrate.