On Wed, 05 Mar 2008, a befuddled Goober ineptly maundered:

>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:20:58 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, the Goober lied:
>>
>>>Buxqi wrote:
>>>> On Mar 4, 2:46 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:27:36 -0800 (PST), Buxqi > wrote:
>>>>>> In AR terms is that lynx and wolves are not "moral agents"
>>>>>> and therefore it is "OK" for them to kill. Humans on the other hand
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> capable of appreciating the value of (eg) a deer's life and therefore
>>>>>> refrain from
>>>>>> killing. Howevere we are also capable of apprecating the bigger
>>>>>> picture -
>>>>>> the necessity of keeping the overall population stable. Shouldn't we
>>>>>> factor
>>>>>> this into our moral calculations?
>>>>> Eliminationists don't really care about the animals involved.
>>>>> That's made clear by the fact that they want to eliminate all
>>>>> domestic animals, not provide them with decent lives of positive
>>>>> value. So as far as "animal rights" are concerned, it's easy to see
>>>>> that "ar" would not provide rights or anything else for domestic
>>>>> animals.
>>>>
>>>> Naturally one can not provide rights for something that no
>>>> longer exists. Big deal!
>>>>
>>>>> From there we see that advocates of the misnomer "ar",
>>>>> ie eliminationists, *can not* be concerned about rights or anything
>>>>> else for domestic animals, but they can only be interested in what
>>>>> makes them feel better themselves.
>>>>
>>>> AR advocates are concerned about animals that are currently
>>>> domesticated.
>>>
>>>They aren't concerned in the least about domestic
>>>animals that actually exist. They want to prevent any
>>>more such animals from existing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Some see domestication as an evil in itself.
>>>> Others keep animals as pets.
>>>>
>>>>> So what about wildlife?
>>>>> Eliminationists contribute to the deaths of wildlife in the same
>>>>> ways that most people do by their use of roads and buildings,
>>>>> wood and paper products, products which have been mined,
>>>>> their own diets, use of communication systems and electricity...
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Its impossible to do very much at all without causing at
>>>> least some animal suffering along the way but this seems to
>>>> me like a poor excuse for willfully ignoring the interests of
>>>> animals you can effect directly.
>>>>
>>>>>> Put another way it seems that most AR activists generally applaud
>>>>>> plans to reintroduce natural predators.
>>>
>>>Right. The natural predators should be there.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Yes and again that's without having consideration for the
>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>
>>>No such consideration is due.
>>
>> Yes it is, Goo. You are inconsiderate of everything other than
>>yourself by your own nature, and putting your faith in "ar" just
>>made you that much more inconsiderate toward certain groups
>>of animals like domestic animals and wildlife.
>
>No

Then which animals do you think you're capable of having
consideration for, Goo, do you have any idea?

>>. . .
>>>>> Some eliminationists
>>>
>>>No such thing.
>>
>> Goober you know there is and even referred to it earlier
>>in the same post in which you later dishonestly denied it,
>>and you've referred to it more than once on other occasions:
>>
>>I belive most "ARAs" do want to see farm animals eliminated. - Goo
>>
>>They aren't concerned in the least about domestic
>>animals that actually exist. They want to prevent any
>>more such animals from existing. - Goo
>>
>>"Vegans" don't want any livestock animals to live. - Goo
>>
>>People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
>>aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
>>animals: they don't want there to be farm animals. - Goo
>>
>>"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products.
>>That's an influence, whether you like it or not. - Goo
>>
>>There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world. - Goo
>
>No

No what Goob? Your own quotes above are in attempt to
support the elimination objective, and then you respond to
your own quotes by saying "no". Goober if you think you now
disagree with yourself then try to explain how you think you do.
It looks most likely that you don't have any idea what you think
again, and that you've simply outstupided yourself AGAIN.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008, the most dishonest of Goobers stupidly wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:27:50 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008, a befuddled Goober ineptly maundered:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:20:58 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 04 Mar 2008, the Goober lied:
>>>>
>>>>>Buxqi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Put another way it seems that most AR activists generally applaud
>>>>>>>> plans to reintroduce natural predators.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right. The natural predators should be there.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes and again that's without having consideration for the
>>>>>>> animals themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>No such consideration is due.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is, Goo. You are inconsiderate of everything other than
>>>>yourself by your own nature, and putting your faith in "ar" just
>>>>made you that much more inconsiderate toward certain groups
>>>>of animals like domestic animals and wildlife.
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Then which animals do you think you're capable of having
>>consideration for, Goo, do you have any idea?
>
>Domestic animals, Goo. Understand this, Goo: the
>consideration I owe them *only* is owed if they exist.

You're not capable of having any consideration for livestock
Goober. Not for any of them at all. Not for any pets or performing
animals either, and certainly not for any research animals, Goo.

>>>>. . .
>>>>>>> Some eliminationists
>>>>>
>>>>>No such thing.
>>>>
>>>> Goober you know there is and even referred to it earlier
>>>>in the same post in which you later dishonestly denied it,
>>>>and you've referred to it more than once on other occasions:
>>>>
>>>>I belive most "ARAs" do want to see farm animals eliminated. - Goo
>>>>
>>>>They aren't concerned in the least about domestic
>>>>animals that actually exist. They want to prevent any
>>>>more such animals from existing. - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Vegans" don't want any livestock animals to live. - Goo
>>>>
>>>>People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
>>>>aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
>>>>animals: they don't want there to be farm animals. - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>>mean no animals raised for food and other products.
>>>>That's an influence, whether you like it or not. - Goo
>>>>
>>>>There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world. - Goo
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> No what Goob? Your own quotes above are in attempt to
>>support the elimination objective, and then you respond to
>>your own quotes by saying "no". Goober if you think you now
>>disagree with yourself then try to explain how you think you do.
>>It looks most likely that you don't have any idea what you think
>>again, and that you've simply outstupided yourself AGAIN.
>
>Re-read it

Goober I presented it BECAUSE it shows that you ARE familiar
with the objective you're now amusingly and very stupidly trying
to deny. Why do you suddenly want to try to disagree with
yourself about this Goo, do you have even the slightest clue?
You have already outstupided yourself Goob and there's no
going back, so you really don't have anything to lose by trying
to explain how you think you disagree with yourself. Go ahead
and try explaining Goo, GO:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:33:04 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 6, 2:55*pm, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> dh pointed out:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 05 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> >> dh asked the most inept of Goobers:
>>>
>>> >>> Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> dh pointed out:
>>>
>>> >>>>> * *Yes it is, Goo. You are inconsiderate of everything other than
>>> >>>>> yourself by your own nature, and putting your faith in "ar" just
>>> >>>>> made you that much more inconsiderate toward certain groups
>>> >>>>> of animals like domestic animals and wildlife.
>>> >>>> No
>>> >>> * *Then which animals do you think you're capable of having
>>> >>> consideration for, Goo, do you have any idea?
>>> >> Domestic animals, Goo. *Understand this, Goo: *the
>>> >> consideration I owe them *only* is owed if they exist.
>>>
>>> > * * You're not capable of having any consideration for livestock
>>>
>>> No consideration is due them, Goo, if they don't exist.
>>
>>
>>Yet your own words contend there is a pre-existent state in which they
>>do exist prior to existing in the here-and-now.
>>
>>Can you explain how you disagree with yourself on that Goo?
>>
>No.

Try thinking for a second then Goober: Since you can't explain
anything about how you think you disagree with yourself, AND you
can't explain how you think pre-existence could prevent existing
entities from benefitting from lives of positive value, WTF does that
tiny crumb of turd you use for a brain "think" it has as for argument,
do you have even the slightest clue, Goo?