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.

****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 ****.

"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
>
>

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 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.

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.

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 20:20:22 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?

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.

<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.

****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.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:11:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><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

You do neither. If you're claiming now that you do, then try to
explain how. Since you can't because you don't, it's clear that you
do neither. Duh. Why would you even want anyone to think that
you do either? Have you any clue about that? No, you don't even
know why you would want anyone to think you could. You are
completely lost within your own twisted little mind. The tight twists
in such incredibly cramped quarters cause you "thoughts" to bang
into each other, conflicting with each other, but you can't figure out
how or why you think you disagree with yourself, so you just wander
cluelessly in your own imagination never knowing what to believe
or why. Apparently the only thing you can do to relieve some of the
shame caused by your own stupefication, is to take refuge in the
lame idea that information which confuses you even more is somehow
equivocation. That doesn't work though, because accusing something
of being equivocation is a clear way of saying you just can't figure it out.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Goo wrote:

>dh asked Clueless Goo:

>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:23:14 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> dh asked Clueless Goo:
>>
>>>> You feel that your imagined "entities" would be better off
>>>> not ever existing Goo?

>>> 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.

Goober, you very clearly have claimed that:

"it does not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo

Do you have any idea how you are now trying to disagree with
yourself, Goob? Or do you stand by your earlier claim that they
are not "better off than before they existed"? Goo?

>YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>existence.

That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
"argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
from benefitting too. Don't forget though Goober that as yet
you haven't even attempted to show how that could possibly
be the case. You can't do it Goo and you never could, so don't
pretend you have done it in the past and just can't do it any
more....you never could Goo, never.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:11:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:20:22 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> 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
>
> You do neither.

I don't use that equivocation, I see through it. You're busted.

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:51 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:11:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news >>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:20:22 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> 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
>>
>> You do neither. If you're claiming now that you do, then try to
>>explain how. Since you can't because you don't, it's clear that you
>>do neither. Duh. Why would you even want anyone to think that
>>you do either? Have you any clue about that? No, you don't even
>>know why you would want anyone to think you could. You are
>>completely lost within your own twisted little mind. The tight twists
>>in such incredibly cramped quarters cause you "thoughts" to bang
>>into each other, conflicting with each other, but you can't figure out
>>how or why you think you disagree with yourself, so you just wander
>>cluelessly in your own imagination never knowing what to believe
>>or why. Apparently the only thing you can do to relieve some of the
>>shame caused by your own stupefication, is to take refuge in the
>>lame idea that information which confuses you even more is somehow
>>equivocation. That doesn't work though, because accusing something
>>of being equivocation is a clear way of saying you just can't figure it out.
>
>I don't

No, you don't do either, meaning that you do neither like I pointed
out, duh.

>use that equivocation

Accusing something of being equivocation is a clear way of saying
you just can't figure it out.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:51 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:11:13 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:20:22 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:6lb363h42sh5a6uq43qh8orgq53m0nj8o1@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> You do neither. If you're claiming now that you do, then try to
>>>explain how. Since you can't because you don't, it's clear that you
>>>do neither. Duh. Why would you even want anyone to think that
>>>you do either? Have you any clue about that? No, you don't even
>>>know why you would want anyone to think you could. You are
>>>completely lost within your own twisted little mind. The tight twists
>>>in such incredibly cramped quarters cause you "thoughts" to bang
>>>into each other, conflicting with each other, but you can't figure out
>>>how or why you think you disagree with yourself, so you just wander
>>>cluelessly in your own imagination never knowing what to believe
>>>or why. Apparently the only thing you can do to relieve some of the
>>>shame caused by your own stupefication, is to take refuge in the
>>>lame idea that information which confuses you even more is somehow
>>>equivocation. That doesn't work though, because accusing something
>>>of being equivocation is a clear way of saying you just can't figure it
>>>out.
>>
>>I don't
>
> No, you don't do either, meaning that you do neither like I pointed
> out, duh.

No, meaning that unlike you I don't equivocate on the word "consideration"
between

a. a considerate and thoughtful act, (considerate: showing concern for the
rights and feelings of others )

b. the process of giving careful thought to something

You equivocate on these meanings. Consideration,(a) a considerate and
thoughtful act, is not the same as consideration, (b) giving careful thought
to the fact that animals born into the food system "get to experience life".

>>use that equivocation
>
> Accusing something of being equivocation is a clear way of saying
> you just can't figure it out.

No, it's a clear way of saying that the person is equivocating, and I am
aware of it.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever, lied:
>
>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:23:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever, lied:
>>>>> You feel that your imagined "entities" would be better off
>>>>> not ever existing Rudy?
>
>>>> Not my "imagined entities"
>>> Why do you feel that "they"

Not my imagined entities, ****wit - yours. Proved
beyond debate.

>>>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.
>
> Rudy, you very clearly have claimed that:

****wit, I very clearly have SHOWN - not claimed - that
you, and only you, ascribe moral considerability to
non-existent animals.


>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>> existence.
>
> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of

....of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
that don't exist, ought to come into existence. YOUR
belief is absurd, ****wit.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Goo wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>lied:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>>> existence.
>>
>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>>position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>>"argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>>imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>>absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>>from benefitting too.
>
>...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>that don't exist

Then we agree that existing entities often benefit from their
existence, Goo.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>> lied:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>>>> existence.
>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>>> position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>>> "argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>>> imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>>> absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>> >from benefitting too.
>>
>> ...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>> that don't exist
>
> Then we agree that existing entities

We're not talking about existing entities, ****wit, and
we never were. We are talking about YOUR ****witted,
false belief that non-existent entities can "benefit"
by coming into existence. You are wrong.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Goo wrote:
>
>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>>lied:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>>>> existence.
>>>
>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>>>position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>>>"argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>>>imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>>>absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>>>from benefitting too.
>>
>>...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>>that don't exist
>
> Then we agree that existing entities often benefit from their
> existence, Goo.


You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestok animal into
existence, that is a conflict of interest, self-serving circular sophistry.
The only moral implications towards livestock animals are *obligations*.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>>>lied:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>>>>> existence.
>>>>
>>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>>>>position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>>>>"argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>>>>imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>>>>absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>>>>from benefitting too.
>>>
>>>...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>>>that don't exist
>>
>> Then we agree that existing entities often benefit from their
>> existence, Goo.
>
>
>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestok animal into
>existence

Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
If so, which ones and why?

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:45:30 GMT, the Goober wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
> lied:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, the Goober wrote:
>>
>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>>> lied:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, the Goober wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>>>>> existence.
>>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>>>> position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>>>> "argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>>>> imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>>>> absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>>> >from benefitting too.
>>>
>>> ...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>>> that don't exist
>>
>> Then we agree that existing entities
>
>We're not talking about existing entities, ****wit, and
>we never were.

That's exactly what we have been talking about Goob:

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo

when did you forget, have you any idea?

>We are talking about YOUR ****witted,
>false belief that non-existent entities can

LOL!!! No Goober that's not what WE are talking about,
it's what YOU are talking about. Why are you so obsessed
with "them" Goo? How do you think "they" prevent existing
beings with lives of positive value, from benefitting from their
existence? Try to explain.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
lied:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:45:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>> lied:
>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>>>> lied:
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>>>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>>>>>> existence.
>>>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>>>>> position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>>>>> "argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>>>>> imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>>>>> absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>>>> >from benefitting too.
>>>>
>>>> ...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>>>> that don't exist
>>> Then we agree that existing entities
>> We're not talking about existing entities, ****wit, and
>> we never were.
>
> That's exactly what we have been talking

No, ****wit. We have always and *only* been talking
about your "imaginary, non-existent" livestock that you
stupidly think "ought" to come into existence. That's
all, ****wit. Stop lying.


>> We are talking about YOUR ****witted, false
>> belief that non-existent entities can "benefit"
>> by coming into existence. You are wrong.
>
> LOL!!! No Rudy that's not what WE are talking about,

Yes, ****wit, that is the only thing we have been
talking about. Stop lying, ****wit.

That is exactly what you mean when you blabber about
"giving consideration to their lives", ****wit. You
mean "they ought to exist". That's it, ****wit. Stop
lying.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>into existence
>
> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
> If so, which ones and why?

None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are suggesting.
If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful in
breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we might
"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
significance. In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that
species, and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies to
livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian like Singer, and even then
only to a farm like The Salatin Farm.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied
> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
> >>>lied:
> >>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
> >>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
> >>>>> existence.
>
> >>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
> >>>>position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
> >>>>"argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
> >>>>imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
> >>>>absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
> >>>>from benefitting too.
>
> >>>...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
> >>>that don't exist
>
> >> Then we agree that existing entities often benefit from their
> >> existence

No, ****wit. We don't agree, because that is bullshit, and I don't
agree with cracker bullshit. That was a lame attempt, ****wit.


> >You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestok animal into
> >existence
>
> Would you allow us to consider the lives

What you mean by "consider the lives", ****wit, is "think they 'ought'
to live". It's bullshit.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:19:39 -0700, Goo wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied
>> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>> >>>lied:
>> >>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>> >>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>> >>>>> existence.
>>
>> >>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>> >>>>position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>> >>>>"argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>> >>>>imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>> >>>>absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>> >>>>from benefitting too.
>>
>> >>>...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>> >>>that don't exist
>>
>> >> Then we agree that existing entities often benefit from their
>> >> existence
>
>No, ****wit. We don't agree, because that is bullshit, and I don't
>agree with cracker bullshit. That was a lame attempt, ****wit.
>
>
>> >You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestok animal into
>> >existence
>>
>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>If so, which ones and why?
>
>What you mean by "consider the lives"

Do you have the ability to consider the life of anything at all, Goo?
If so, try explaining how...or what...

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, the Goober wrote:

>when you blabber about "giving consideration
>to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
>to exist".

Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>into existence
>>
>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>> If so, which ones and why?
>
>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are suggesting.
>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful in
>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we might
>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
>significance.

So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for the
very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
I keep pointing out.

>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,

Why only then, but not every other time as well?

>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies to
>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian

You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
because it's the most significant part of it.

****wit David Harrison, solicitor of kinky *** sex on
houseboats and hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:19:39 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>>>>>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>>>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>>>>>>> position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>>>>>>> "argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>>>>>>> imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>>>>>>> absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>>>>>> >from benefitting too.
>>>>>> ...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>>>>>> that don't exist
>>>>> Then we agree that existing entities often benefit from their
>>>>> existence
>> No, ****wit. We don't agree, because that is bullshit, and I don't
>> agree with cracker bullshit. That was a lame attempt, ****wit.
>>
>>
>>>> You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestok animal into
>>>> existence
>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>> If so, which ones and why?
>> What you mean by "consider the lives", ****wit, is "think they 'ought'
>> to live". It's bullshit.
>
> Do you have the ability to consider the

What you mean by "consider the lives", ****wit, is
"think they 'ought' to live". It's bullshit.

****wit David Harrison, kinky *** sex on houseboats
pervert, lied:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> when you blabber about "giving consideration
>> to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
>> to exist".
>
> Which particular

You mean livestock animals "ought" to exist, ****wit,
as if coming into existence is a "benefit" to them. It
is not a benefit to them, ****wit - it can't be.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:19:39 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> >****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied
>>> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:03:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as ever,
>>> >>>lied:
>>> >>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:11:11 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>> YOU feel "they" - only *your* "they",
>>> >>>>> ****wit, not mine - are better off if they come into
>>> >>>>> existence.
>>>
>>> >>>> That's one of the main reasons for the absurdity of your
>>> >>>>position Goobs: I consider animals who exist, while your entire
>>> >>>>"argument" is based completely on your insistence that your
>>> >>>>imaginary pre-conceived "entities" can't benefit, and your
>>> >>>>absurd belief that somehow the fact prevents existing entities
>>> >>>>from benefitting too.
>>>
>>> >>>...of your ****witted belief that imaginary animals
>>> >>>that don't exist
>>>
>>> >> Then we agree that existing entities often benefit from their
>>> >> existence
>>
>>No, ****wit. We don't agree, because that is bullshit, and I don't
>>agree with cracker bullshit. That was a lame attempt, ****wit.
>>
>>
>>> >You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestok animal into
>>> >existence
>>>
>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>If so, which ones and why?
>>
>>What you mean by "consider the lives"
>
> Do you have the ability to consider

What do mean by it?

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, the Goober wrote:
>
>>when you blabber about "giving consideration
>>to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
>>to exist".
>
> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
> trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?

The potential animals that you say ARAs selfishly want to deny life to.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:25:01 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:04:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>You can't claim a moral victory for bringing a livestock animal
>>>>into existence
>>>
>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>> If so, which ones and why?
>>
>>None, nothing is gained by the kind of "consideration" you are suggesting.
>>If a species were near extinction then perhaps if we were successful in
>>breeding them in captivity and reintroducing them into the wild, we might
>>"consider *their* lives", but only because the species has biological
>>significance.
>
> So as always you can consider what's in it for you, but not for the
> very animals we're discussing. Remember that's one of the things
> I keep pointing out.
>
>>In that case we could consider that we had benefitted that species,
>
> Why only then, but not every other time as well?

Livestock species only have value according to our wants, not any inherent
value.

>>and it's environment. We still would not deserve an implicit
>>gratitude from the animals themselves. None of this remotely applies to
>>livestock, except to an extremist utilitarian
>
> You're extremely wrong about that. It matters to anyone who's
> willing to consider human influence on animals. In fact it MUST
> matter to anyone who considers human influence on animals,
> because it's the most significant part of it.

Saying that doesn't make it true.

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> when you blabber about "giving consideration to their lives",
>>> ****wit. You mean "they ought to exist".
>>
>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on trying to refer to
>> Rudy, have you any idea?
>
> The potential animals

That is, non-existent animals...


> that you say ARAs selfishly want to deny life to.

****wit it just nuts.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, the bewildered Goo desperately cried:

> dh again asked the most inept of Goobers:

>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, a bewildered Goober foolishly claimed:
>>
>>> dh asked:

>>>> Would you allow us to consider the lives of any creatures?
>>>> If so, which ones and why?

>>> What you mean by "consider the lives", ****wit, is "think they 'ought'
>>> to live". It's bullshit.
>>
>> Do you have the ability to consider the lives of anything
>> at all, you poor, inept, completely clueless Goober:
>
> What you mean by "consider the lives"

Goob, at one time you pretended to have the ability to
consider the lives of some beings, and oddly even the lives
of some livestock:

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

If you're capable of considering the lives of anything, then
just explain what and how you're able to do so. When you
can't do that, it will be proof that you are clueless about
the whole issue, and that any "thoughts" you have on the
matter are exactly what they appear to be: The inept
maunderings of a completely clueless Goober.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:42:08 GMT, the Goober wrote:

>dh asked the completely inept Goober:

>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
>>trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?
>
>You mean livestock animals "ought" to exist

Which ones do you think you're trying to refer to Goob?
So far no one knows what you think you're trying to talk
about, apparently not even you.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:58:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:22 GMT, the Goober wrote:
>>
>>>when you blabber about "giving consideration
>>>to their lives", ****wit. You mean "they ought
>>>to exist".
>>
>> Which particular "they" do you keep insisting on
>> trying to refer to Goo, have you any idea?
>
>The potential animals that you say ARAs selfishly
>want to deny life to.

Do you think it means all of "them"? Since you know
I'm opposed to battery cages, it would be extra stupid
of you to think that. But then anything beyond such
stupidity involves details, and we know you instantly
become a vegetable as soon as any details need to
be considered...like now for example.