For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting that
we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
considering human influence on animals:

1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters

2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps

3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
3d 6 week old pheasants killed by human hunters

4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain

> wrote
> For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
> the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting that
> we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
> position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
> lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
> consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
> considering human influence on animals:

What do you mean by "consider"? Be more explicit.

> 1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
> 1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
> 1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
> 1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters
>
> 2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
> 2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
> 2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
> 2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
>
> 3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
> 3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
> 3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
> 3d 6 week old pheasants killed by human hunters
>
> 4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
> 4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
> 4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
> 4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
> 4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
> 4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
> 4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
> 4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
> 4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
> 4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
> 4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
> 4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
> 4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
> 4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain

On May 31, 11:38 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote
>
> > For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
> > the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting that
> > we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
> > position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
> > lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
> > consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
> > considering human influence on animals:
>
> What do you mean by "consider"? Be more explicit.

I would never tell you what to do, but I would suggest that in
replying to a blatant ****wit David Harrison sock puppet, you should
always be sure to include something to the effect that you recognize
it as a sloppily put together sock puppet, and heap some ridicule on
him for doing it.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 31, 11:38 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> > For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
>> > the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting
>> > that
>> > we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
>> > position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
>> > lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
>> > consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following,
>> > when
>> > considering human influence on animals:
>>
>> What do you mean by "consider"? Be more explicit.
>
> I would never tell you what to do, but I would suggest that in
> replying to a blatant ****wit David Harrison sock puppet, you should
> always be sure to include something to the effect that you recognize
> it as a sloppily put together sock puppet, and heap some ridicule on
> him for doing it.

I considered it too obvious to even mention.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
>> the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting that
>> we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
>> position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
>> lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
>> consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
>> considering human influence on animals:
>
>What do you mean by "consider"?

Take into consideration, especially when giving thought to human
influence on animals.

>Be more explicit.

You need to be more capable. You can't do it at all so you claim,
though you also claim to have been able to in the past. You obviously
never could, but there is some slight chance that you truly believed
that you could at one time. This unlearning crap you think you have
going on is so stupid that it really is funny, btw. Did you know that,
or do you think it's cool for some reason?

>> 1a 2 week old fawns killed by dogs
>> 1b 2 week old fawns killed by wolves
>> 1c 2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
>> 1d 2 year old deer killed by human hunters
>>
>> 2a 5 day old field mice killed by plows
>> 2b 5 day old field mice killed by snakes
>> 2c 5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
>> 2d 2 year old field mice killed by traps
>>
>> 3a 6 week old pheasants killed by cars
>> 3b 6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
>> 3c 6 week old pheasants killed by getting caught in fences
>> 3d 6 week old pheasants killed by human hunters
>>
>> 4a 4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
>> 4b 4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
>> 4c 4 week old broiler chicks killed by drowning when pipes break
>> 4d 6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
>> 4e 4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
>> 4f 4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
>> 4g 4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
>> 4h 4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
>> 4i 4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
>> 4j 4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
>> 4k 4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
>> 4l 4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
>> 4m 3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
>> 4n 4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain
>
>

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> wrote
>>> For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
>>> the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting
>>> that
>>> we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
>>> position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
>>> lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
>>> consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
>>> considering human influence on animals:
>>
>>What do you mean by "consider"?
>
> Take into consideration, especially when giving thought to human
> influence on animals.

Taking into consideration is not the same as "being considerate". So you're
not referring to the phrase "being considerate"?

>
>>Be more explicit.
>
> You need to be more capable. You can't do it at all so you claim,
> though you also claim to have been able to in the past. You obviously
> never could, but there is some slight chance that you truly believed
> that you could at one time. This unlearning crap you think you have
> going on is so stupid that it really is funny, btw. Did you know that,
> or do you think it's cool for some reason?

I don't find it funny or cool that you think that transparent equivocations
like the one above is convincing, I find it pathetic.

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:20:22 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
> wrote
>>>> For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
>>>> the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting
>>>> that
>>>> we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
>>>> position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
>>>> lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
>>>> consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
>>>> considering human influence on animals:
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "consider"?
>>
>> Take into consideration, especially when giving thought to human
>> influence on animals.
>
>Taking into consideration is not the same as "being considerate".

You admittedly do neither.

>So you're
>not referring to the phrase "being considerate"?
>
>>
>>>Be more explicit.
>>
>> You need to be more capable. You can't do it at all so you claim,
>> though you also claim to have been able to in the past. You obviously
>> never could, but there is some slight chance that you truly believed
>> that you could at one time. This unlearning crap you think you have
>> going on is so stupid that it really is funny, btw. Did you know that,
>> or do you think it's cool for some reason?
>
>I don't find it funny or cool

Then why do you claim to have done so, do you have any clue
at all about that?

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:20:22 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
> wrote
>>>>> For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
>>>>> the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting
>>>>> that
>>>>> we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
>>>>> position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of
>>>>> some
>>>>> lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
>>>>> consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following,
>>>>> when
>>>>> considering human influence on animals:
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean by "consider"?
>>>
>>> Take into consideration, especially when giving thought to human
>>> influence on animals.
>>
>>Taking into consideration is not the same as "being considerate".
>
> You admittedly do neither.

Stop using that equivocation ****wit, you're not fooling anyone.

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:38:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote
>>> For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
>>> the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting that
>>> we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
>>> position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
>>> lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
>>> consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following, when
>>> considering human influence on animals:
>> What do you mean by "consider"?
>
> Take into consideration,

Circular; bullshit. Dismissed.


>> Be more explicit.
>
> You need to be more capable.

Evasion noted.

****wit David Harrison, clumsily and ineptly trying to disguise
himself, blabbered:
> For years "aras" have been insisting that

**** off, ****wit.

Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock, ****wit, and
preventing any future livestock would not be doing anything "to" non-
existent entities.

You clumsy, stupid ****.

On 31 May 2007 13:10:42 -0700, Goo wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, clumsily and ineptly trying to disguise
>himself, blabbered:
>> For years "aras" have been insisting that
>
>**** off, ****wit.

You too Goo.

>Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock,

You have yet to even address that Goob. All you have
"done"--for whatever absurd reason you've done it--is
explain why entities coming into existence, is not a benefit
for your imaginary pre-existent "entities". You have given
no one else reason to consider your imagined pre-existent
fantasy beings, you Gooby little Goo.

> ****wit, and
>preventing any future livestock would not be doing anything "to" non-
>existent entities.

You feel that your imagined "entities" would be better off
not ever existing Goobs...at first you admitted that you didn't
know:

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might
provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
state was for the animals" - Goo

but now you're insisting that you somehow know that they
were better off in you supposed "pre-existence state". Why
should anyone believe that along with you, Goo? You claimed
you can explain, so try too.

dh@. wrote:
> On 31 May 2007 13:10:42 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, clumsily and ineptly trying to disguise
>> himself, blabbered:
>>> For years "aras" have been insisting that
>> **** off, ****wit.
>
> You too Rudy.

**** off, ****wit, you ****. You stupidly tried an
absurd sock puppet move, and you got your ass kicked
for it. **** off.


>
>> Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for livestock,
>
> You have yet to even address that

Done, hundreds of times. Coming into existence is not
- CANNOT be - a benefit.


>> ****wit, and
>> preventing any future livestock would not be doing anything "to" non-
>> existent entities.
>
> You feel that your imagined "entities" would be better off
> not ever existing

Not my "imagined entities", ****wit - yours. And you
*clearly* believe that imagined, non-existent entities
would be better off coming into existence. That's just
****witted and bizarre beyond belief, ****wit. But
that's what you believe.

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:23:14 GMT, an inept Goober wrote:

>dh@. pointed out:

>> You feel that your imagined "entities" would be better off
>> not ever existing
>
>Not my "imagined entities"

Why do you feel that "they" are better off never existing, Goo?
You claimed you can explain it but your lack of action screams
that you can't do it...that you are too inept. Try to explain, Goobs.

****wit David Harrison, THE goober and overmatched as
always, lied:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:23:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, THE goober and overmatched as always, lied:
>
>>> You feel that your imagined "entities" would be better off
>>> not ever existing
>> Not my "imagined entities"
>
> Why do you feel that "they" are better off never existing

I don't, ****wit. I don't make *any* assumptions about
the welfare of entities that don't exist. I leave that
to you, ****wit. YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
existence. You have no basis for that belief, but you
believe it.