<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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.
It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.

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...

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ups.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. 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. 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.

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

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 -

"Anybody" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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.

Why do you keep changing your nym Ronnie? Nobody cares enough to killfile
you.

On May 31, 4:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Anybody" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Why do you keep changing your nym Ronnie? Nobody cares enough to killfile
> you.



Flags of convenience Douche.







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

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...

<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.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:26:05 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On May 31, 11:50 am, > wrote:
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>>>>> the livestock exist.
>>>>
>>>>> If you think you have any clue about any of this
>>>>
>>>> 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

No.


>
>> 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

He's not. He's simply pointing out - yes! - that people who want to
eliminate livestock animals are *not* failing to give adequate
consideration to anything that is owed consideration.


>> 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 not a lie. It *doesn't* matter if livestock exist, apart from
their utility to humans; and you *don't* understand that it doesn't matter.


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

It's not a lie.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs

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.

****wit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
> 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,

No, it is absolutely your position, ****wit. That's
what allllllllll this blabber about considering "their
lives", as opposed to the *welfare* of their lives, is
about.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:

> On 31 May 2007 13:04:52 -0700, Rudy > wrote:
>
>> On May 31, 11:50 am, > wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
>>>> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>>>> the livestock exist.
>>>
>>>> If you think you have any clue about any of this
>>>
>>> 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

No. It's all you're blabbering about, ****wit. "Consider their lives"
= want the livestock to exist. That's all you mean by it.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs