On May 31, 10:52 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> >> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> >> the animals themselves should also always be given
> >> much consideration.
>
> >No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
> >lives".

*EXACTLY* right.


>
> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
> for them the be raised for food, their lives

NO. There is zero reason to give "their lives" any consideration. Of
course, what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
and that's just wrong. You will never persuade anyone of that. The
*welfare* of their lives, if the lives occur, is important; "their
lives", as something that should be given even a moment's
consideration before the lives occur, are not important.

You'll never get there, ****wit, no matter how much bullshit you spew
and how much wasted time you put into it: you will never persuade
anyone that livestock "ought" to exist out of any consideration of
their lives.

On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,

Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
"ought to occur"?

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>
> Which particular thei

There is zero reason to give "their lives" any
consideration. Of
course, what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives
"ought" to occur,
and that's just wrong. You will never persuade anyone
of that. The
*welfare* of their lives, if the lives occur, is
important; "their
lives", as something that should be given even a moment's
consideration before the lives occur, are not important.

You'll never get there, ****wit, no matter how much
bullshit you spew
and how much wasted time you put into it: you will
never persuade
anyone that livestock "ought" to exist out of any
consideration of
their lives.

<dh@.> wrote
> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>
> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
> "ought to occur"?


If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
livestock?

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>
>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>> "ought to occur"?
>
>
>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
>livestock?

The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>
>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>> "ought to occur"?
>>
>>
>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination
>>of
>>livestock?
>
> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.


You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help the
animals?

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>>
>>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>>> "ought to occur"?
>>>
>>>
>>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination
>>>of
>>>livestock?
>>
>> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
>> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
>> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.
>
>
>You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help the
>animals?

Which animals? How?

On Jun 20, 12:51 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>><dh@.> wrote
> >>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>
> >>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
> >>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
> >>>> "ought to occur"?
>
> >>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination
> >>>of
> >>>livestock?
>
> >> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> >> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> >> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.
>
> >You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help the
> >animals?
>
> Which animals?

THESE animals, ****wit - the non-existent, imaginary ones you
irrationally obsess over:

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
****wit - 07/30/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 01/08/2002

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>>>
>>>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>>>> "ought to occur"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the
>>>>elimination
>>>>of
>>>>livestock?
>>>
>>> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
>>> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
>>> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.
>>
>>
>>You yourself advocate the elimination of battery hens. Doesn't that help
>>the
>>animals?
>
> Which animals? How?

Answer the question. Why do you advocate the elimination of battery hens?
How does that help the animals? This is the same question you are posing to
vegans, if you expect them to answer it then you should be able to.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant
cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched ignorant cracker, lied:
>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Rudy,
>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>> "ought to occur"?

YOU are the one who thinks "their" lives "ought" to
occur, ****wit. They don't exist, yet somehow -
fantastically - you think "they" ought to come into
existence and "get to experience life", because you
believe - fantastically - that doing so would be a
"benefit" to "them".


>>
>> If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
>> livestock?
>
> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.

How can *anything* help non-existent imaginary animals,
****wit? Goddamn, you just talk worse and worse
foolishness.

Make no mistake, ****wit - you think "they", meaning
non-existent imaginary livestock, could somehow
"benefit" by coming into existence. That is absolute
horseshit.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Goo wrote:

>you think "they", meaning non-existent imaginary
>livestock, could somehow "benefit" by coming into
>existence.

LOL. Your obsession with "non-existent imaginary
livestock" is amusing Goober, but it also completely
screws up whatever you use for a mind. Appreciating
the fact that some things benefit from lives of positive
value is in no way dependant on or restricted by your
supposed "non-existent imaginary livestock", Goo.
Try to understand--in spite of your obsession with the
idea--that it has nothing to do with "them".

****wit David Harrison, who claims to appreciate the life of a dead
chicken, lied:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >you think "they", meaning non-existent imaginary
> >livestock, could somehow "benefit" by coming into
> >existence.
>
> LOL. Your obsession with "non-existent imaginary
> livestock"

No - YOUR obsession with them, ****wit. You, ****wit, are the one who
"thinks" they are being "denied life" by "aras". That's absurd,
****wit, but you think it, and there is no dispute that you think it.
We have your own posts to see that you think it, ****wit:

That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
****wit - 07/30/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 01/08/2002

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

EVERYTHING you have written over eight miserable wasted years,
****wit, proves that you, and you alone, obsess over imaginary, non-
existent farm animals.

You're ****ed up, ****wit - just a mess.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Goo wrote:
>
>>you think "they", meaning non-existent imaginary
>>livestock, could somehow "benefit" by coming into
>>existence.
>
> LOL. Your obsession with "non-existent imaginary
> livestock"


It's your obsession ****wit.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> you think "they", meaning non-existent imaginary
>> livestock, could somehow "benefit" by coming into
>> existence.
>
> Your obsession with "non-existent imaginary
> livestock"

No - *your* obsession with "them", Goo.



--
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

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

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>
>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to Goo,
>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>> "ought to occur"?
>>
>>
>> If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
>> livestock?
>
> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.

It's not intended to help any animals, Goo. It's intended to prevent
what the "aras" feel is cruelty to animals.

There's nothing selfish about it, Goo.


--
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 6/19/2007 9:42 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, lying cracker idiot
- lied:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:17:27 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, lying cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>>>
>>> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to,
>>> and why do you think anything could suggest that "they"
>>> "ought to occur"?
>>
>>
>> If he's not correct, then what's selfish about advocating the elimination of
>> livestock?
>
> The selfishness is because it would ONLY benefit people
> who are disturbed by the fact that humans kill animals for
> food, but it would do nothing to help the animals.

*WHICH* animals, Goo? Which animals wouldn't be helped, and which would
be eliminated? Goo?



--
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

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

> On 31 May 2007 13:02:15 -0700, Rudy > wrote:
>
>> what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
>
> Which particular their lives are you trying to refer to

The non-existent farm animals you want to exist in the future, Goo.


--
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