<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
>>> livestock.
>>
>>Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except
>>that they are more useful?
>
> I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
> but I kill mice when they come in even so.

Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?

>>They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
>>that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
>>life".
>
> Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
> experience life?
>
> If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?
>
> If so, then try explaining why you think that same
> consideration should not be applied to all animals.

I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice, it's always
livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock? Sure, they're
tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
>>>> livestock.
>>>
>>> Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice
>>> except
>>> that they are more useful?
>>
>> I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
>> but I kill mice when they come in even so.
>
> Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?

Heh heh heh...****wit doesn't actually like *any* animals, as animals;
he only likes animal products. Mice don't yield any products, so
****wit has no use for them.

Dutch, ****wit's phony valuation of animals' "getting to experience
life" is so *obviously* phony. He doesn't care about animals at all;
****wit only cares about products from animals.


>>> They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
>>> that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
>>> life".
>>
>> Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
>> experience life?

*YOU* can't, ****wit. But that's because you don't give a shit about
any animals at all.

In any case, there's nothing to "appreciate"; so, rather strangely,
****wit, you're right not to appreciate it.


>> If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?
>>
>> If so, then try explaining why you think that same
>> consideration should not be applied to all animals.
>
> I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice, it's
> always livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock? Sure,
> they're tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

****wit *only* likes the products; he places no value whatever on
animals' "getting to experience life; that is obviously and irrefutably
just a smokescreen for ****wit.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:42:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
>>>> livestock.
>>>
>>>Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except
>>>that they are more useful?
>>
>> I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
>> but I kill mice when they come in even so.
>
>Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?

So far I'm in favor of livestock and mice, over mice
but no livestock. I believe livestock are capable of
getting more out of life than mice are, because I feel
that they have more mental ability to do so.

>>>They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
>>>that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
>>>life".
>>
>> Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
>> experience life?
>>
>> If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?
>>
>> If so, then try explaining why you think that same
>> consideration should not be applied to all animals.
>
>I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice,

Who doesn't?

>it's always
>livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock?

People who can't appreciate livestock pretend to
appreciate mice, which is a stupefying limitation of
the mind.

>Sure, they're
>tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

I believe even very young chickens do. That is
from personal experience around both.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:42:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
>>>>> livestock.
>>>>
>>>>Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice
>>>>except
>>>>that they are more useful?
>>>
>>> I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
>>> but I kill mice when they come in even so.
>>
>>Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?
>
> So far I'm in favor of livestock and mice, over mice
> but no livestock. I believe livestock are capable of
> getting more out of life than mice are, because I feel
> that they have more mental ability to do so.
>
>>>>They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
>>>>that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
>>>>life".
>>>
>>> Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
>>> experience life?
>>>
>>> If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?
>>>
>>> If so, then try explaining why you think that same
>>> consideration should not be applied to all animals.
>>
>>I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice,
>
> Who doesn't?

You don't complain that people don't appreciate mice, yet you seem to think
that's it's wrong to not appreciate livestock.

>>it's always
>>livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock?
>
> People who can't appreciate livestock pretend to
> appreciate mice, which is a stupefying limitation of
> the mind.

People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating live
ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience life",
that's the nonsense aspect with your position.

>
>>Sure, they're
>>tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>
> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
> from personal experience around both.

So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life, or what
is it?

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:42:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice
>>>>>except
>>>>>that they are more useful?
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
>>>> but I kill mice when they come in even so.
>>>
>>>Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?
>>
>> So far I'm in favor of livestock and mice, over mice
>> but no livestock. I believe livestock are capable of
>> getting more out of life than mice are, because I feel
>> that they have more mental ability to do so.
>>
>>>>>They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
>>>>>that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
>>>>>life".
>>>>
>>>> Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
>>>> experience life?
>>>>
>>>> If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?
>>>>
>>>> If so, then try explaining why you think that same
>>>> consideration should not be applied to all animals.
>>>
>>>I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice,
>>
>> Who doesn't?
>
>You don't complain that people don't appreciate mice, yet you seem to think
>that's it's wrong to not appreciate livestock.
>
>>>it's always
>>>livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock?
>>
>> People who can't appreciate livestock pretend to
>> appreciate mice, which is a stupefying limitation of
>> the mind.
>
>People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating live
>ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience life",
>that's the nonsense aspect with your position.

You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:

>>>Sure, they're
>>>tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>
>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>> from personal experience around both.
>
>So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,

Of course that's not it.

>or what is it?

Try again.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating live
>>ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience life",
>>that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>
> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:

Because there's no point to it. In fact it's probably the most pointless
idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the conditions
we provide them, that's it.


>>>>Sure, they're
>>>>tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>
>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>> from personal experience around both.
>>
>>So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>
> Of course that's not it.
>
>>or what is it?
>
> Try again.

I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows, but not
pigs.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating live
>>>ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience life",
>>>that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>>
>> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
>> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:
>
>Because there's no point to it.

There is if you're capable of having consideration for animals.

>In fact it's probably the most pointless
>idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the conditions
>we provide them, that's it.
>
>
>>>>>Sure, they're
>>>>>tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>>
>>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>>> from personal experience around both.
>>>
>>>So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>>
>> Of course that's not it.
>>
>>>or what is it?
>>
>> Try again.
>
>I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
>but not pigs.

At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
of mice, even though I still don't go along with you on it. I don't
have reason to believe mice enjoy life more than some chickens
or cattle either...it depends on what their particular life is like.
Then there's the ever present fact that humans can deliberately
provide decent lives for chickens and cattle better than they
can for any wild animals. Also, what is the average lifespan
of wild mice in comparison to chickens and cattle? I feel certain
that the average life span of even broiler chickens is longer than
the average life span of wild mice, and cattle much more than
that. So far we have no reason to favor your mice over livestock,
and most likely we never will have.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid ****wit
and a stupid credulous Southern Baptist shitworm - lied and presented no
challenge:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid ****wit and a stupid credulous Southern Baptist shitworm - lied and presented no challenge:
>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating live
>>>> ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience life",
>>>> that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>>> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
>>> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:
>> Because there's no point to it.
>
> There is if

There isn't.

Anyway, Goo, it is established beyond doubt that you have no
consideration for animals; *ONLY* for the products you get from them.


>> In fact it's probably the most pointless
>> idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the conditions
>> we provide them, that's it.
>>
>>
>>>>>> Sure, they're
>>>>>> tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>>>> from personal experience around both.
>>>> So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>>> Of course that's not it.
>>>
>>>> or what is it?
>>> Try again.
>> I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
>> but not pigs.
>
> At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
> of mice,

No, because he doesn't.

You're too stupid a cracker for this, Goo.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating live
>>>>ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience
>>>>life",
>>>>that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>>>
>>> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
>>> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:
>>
>>Because there's no point to it.
>
> There is if you're capable of having consideration for animals.

No, there isn't, no point at all.

>>In fact it's probably the most pointless
>>idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the conditions
>>we provide them, that's it.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Sure, they're
>>>>>>tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>>>> from personal experience around both.
>>>>
>>>>So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>>>
>>> Of course that's not it.
>>>
>>>>or what is it?
>>>
>>> Try again.
>>
>>I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
>>but not pigs.
>
> At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
> of mice, even though I still don't go along with you on it. I don't
> have reason to believe mice enjoy life more than some chickens
> or cattle either...it depends on what their particular life is like.
> Then there's the ever present fact that humans can deliberately
> provide decent lives for chickens and cattle better than they
> can for any wild animals. Also, what is the average lifespan
> of wild mice in comparison to chickens and cattle? I feel certain
> that the average life span of even broiler chickens is longer than
> the average life span of wild mice, and cattle much more than
> that. So far we have no reason to favor your mice over livestock,
> and most likely we never will have.

Yes we do. A mouse weighs a couple of ounces, a cow weighs a half a ton.
Favoring mice means that many thousand-fold more lives are supported on the
same resource. That at the very least makes it absurd to favor livestock.

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating
>>>>> live
>>>>> ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience
>>>>> life",
>>>>> that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>>>>
>>>> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
>>>> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:
>>>
>>> Because there's no point to it.
>>
>> There is if you're capable of having consideration for animals.
>
> No, there isn't, no point at all.

There's certainly no point to giving the phony, philosophically empty
and unsound "consideration" that ****wit falsely says he gives and
cynically urges others to give. ****wit stupidly insists that giving
consideration to the lives livestock *might* lead, if they exist, must
automatically translate into thinking the livestock "ought" to exist.
It's bullshit, of course, and there's no point in making that absurd leap.

*Any* reasonable person might give consideration to the quality of live
that actual livestock lead, but *NO* reasonable person would warp that
consideration to reach a conclusion that livestock "ought" to exist, as
the stupid cracker ****wit David Harrison does.

Of course, ****wit doesn't give any consideration to animals' lives at
all. He only cares about the products derived from animals; that is
abundantly well established.


>
>>> In fact it's probably the most pointless
>>> idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the
>>> conditions
>>> we provide them, that's it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, they're
>>>>>>> tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>>>>> from personal experience around both.
>>>>>
>>>>> So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>>>>
>>>> Of course that's not it.
>>>>
>>>>> or what is it?
>>>>
>>>> Try again.
>>>
>>> I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
>>> but not pigs.
>>
>> At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
>> of mice, even though I still don't go along with you on it. I don't
>> have reason to believe mice enjoy life more than some chickens
>> or cattle either...it depends on what their particular life is like.
>> Then there's the ever present fact that humans can deliberately
>> provide decent lives for chickens and cattle better than they
>> can for any wild animals. Also, what is the average lifespan
>> of wild mice in comparison to chickens and cattle? I feel certain
>> that the average life span of even broiler chickens is longer than
>> the average life span of wild mice, and cattle much more than
>> that. So far we have no reason to favor your mice over livestock,
>> and most likely we never will have.
>
> Yes we do. A mouse weighs a couple of ounces, a cow weighs a half a ton.
> Favoring mice means that many thousand-fold more lives are supported on
> the same resource. That at the very least makes it absurd to favor
> livestock.

If ****wit *really* were concerned with the moral meaning of animals'
"getting to experience life", then he should, indeed, favor mice and
lots of other species of small animals over all the large livestock
animals humans raise, which is to say, over all livestock. But ****wit
doesn't really care about animals at all; his entire wasted nine-year
gag has been nothing but a ****witted cracker troll to try to justify
his own lust for "meat...gravy."

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
m...
> Dutch wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating
>>>>>> live
>>>>>> ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience
>>>>>> life",
>>>>>> that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
>>>>> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:
>>>>
>>>> Because there's no point to it.
>>>
>>> There is if you're capable of having consideration for animals.
>>
>> No, there isn't, no point at all.
>
> There's certainly no point to giving the phony, philosophically empty and
> unsound "consideration" that ****wit falsely says he gives and cynically
> urges others to give. ****wit stupidly insists that giving consideration
> to the lives livestock *might* lead, if they exist, must automatically
> translate into thinking the livestock "ought" to exist. It's bullshit, of
> course, and there's no point in making that absurd leap.
>
> *Any* reasonable person might give consideration to the quality of live
> that actual livestock lead, but *NO* reasonable person would warp that
> consideration to reach a conclusion that livestock "ought" to exist, as
> the stupid cracker ****wit David Harrison does.
>
> Of course, ****wit doesn't give any consideration to animals' lives at
> all. He only cares about the products derived from animals; that is
> abundantly well established.

But, as he composes his messages he pictures idyllic scenes of animals
eating and humping and crapping, at times undoubtedly with him involved.
Surely, he argues, such "consideration" is meaningful.

No, we say, not in the least.


>>>> In fact it's probably the most pointless
>>>> idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the
>>>> conditions
>>>> we provide them, that's it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, they're
>>>>>>>> tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>>>>>> from personal experience around both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course that's not it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> or what is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Try again.
>>>>
>>>> I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
>>>> but not pigs.
>>>
>>> At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
>>> of mice, even though I still don't go along with you on it. I don't
>>> have reason to believe mice enjoy life more than some chickens
>>> or cattle either...it depends on what their particular life is like.
>>> Then there's the ever present fact that humans can deliberately
>>> provide decent lives for chickens and cattle better than they
>>> can for any wild animals. Also, what is the average lifespan
>>> of wild mice in comparison to chickens and cattle? I feel certain
>>> that the average life span of even broiler chickens is longer than
>>> the average life span of wild mice, and cattle much more than
>>> that. So far we have no reason to favor your mice over livestock,
>>> and most likely we never will have.
>>
>> Yes we do. A mouse weighs a couple of ounces, a cow weighs a half a ton.
>> Favoring mice means that many thousand-fold more lives are supported on
>> the same resource. That at the very least makes it absurd to favor
>> livestock.
>
> If ****wit *really* were concerned with the moral meaning of animals'
> "getting to experience life", then he should, indeed, favor mice and lots
> of other species of small animals over all the large livestock animals
> humans raise, which is to say, over all livestock. But ****wit doesn't
> really care about animals at all; his entire wasted nine-year gag has been
> nothing but a ****witted cracker troll to try to justify his own lust for
> "meat...gravy."


Which in itself, ironically, is a fine lust indeed. Too bad he has to
besmirch it with pea-brained tales about chickens "getting to experience
life".

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:25:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
om...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating
>>>>>>> live
>>>>>>> ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience
>>>>>>> life",
>>>>>>> that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
>>>>>> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:
>>>>>
>>>>> Because there's no point to it.
>>>>
>>>> There is if you're capable of having consideration for animals.
>>>
>>> No, there isn't, no point at all.
>>
>> There's certainly no point to giving the phony, philosophically empty and
>> unsound "consideration" that ****wit falsely says he gives and cynically
>> urges others to give. ****wit stupidly insists that giving consideration
>> to the lives livestock *might* lead, if they exist, must automatically
>> translate into thinking the livestock "ought" to exist. It's bullshit, of
>> course, and there's no point in making that absurd leap.
>>
>> *Any* reasonable person might give consideration to the quality of live
>> that actual livestock lead, but *NO* reasonable person would warp that
>> consideration to reach a conclusion that livestock "ought" to exist, as
>> the stupid cracker ****wit David Harrison does.
>>
>> Of course, ****wit doesn't give any consideration to animals' lives at
>> all. He only cares about the products derived from animals; that is
>> abundantly well established.
>
>But, as he composes his messages he pictures idyllic scenes of animals
>eating and humping and crapping,

I remember the farming conditions I've personally witnessed
and been around. They are home to the animals.

>at times undoubtedly with him involved.
>Surely, he argues, such "consideration" is meaningful.
>
>No, we say, not in the least.

That's because you don't have any idea what you're trying
to talk about, much less what I'm telling you about.

>>>>> In fact it's probably the most pointless
>>>>> idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the
>>>>> conditions
>>>>> we provide them, that's it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure, they're
>>>>>>>>> tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>>>>>>> from personal experience around both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course that's not it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or what is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
>>>>> but not pigs.
>>>>
>>>> At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
>>>> of mice, even though I still don't go along with you on it. I don't
>>>> have reason to believe mice enjoy life more than some chickens
>>>> or cattle either...it depends on what their particular life is like.
>>>> Then there's the ever present fact that humans can deliberately
>>>> provide decent lives for chickens and cattle better than they
>>>> can for any wild animals. Also, what is the average lifespan
>>>> of wild mice in comparison to chickens and cattle? I feel certain
>>>> that the average life span of even broiler chickens is longer than
>>>> the average life span of wild mice, and cattle much more than
>>>> that. So far we have no reason to favor your mice over livestock,
>>>> and most likely we never will have.
>>>
>>> Yes we do. A mouse weighs a couple of ounces, a cow weighs a half a ton.
>>> Favoring mice means that many thousand-fold more lives are supported on
>>> the same resource. That at the very least makes it absurd to favor
>>> livestock.
>>
>> If ****wit *really* were concerned with the moral meaning of animals'
>> "getting to experience life", then he should, indeed, favor mice and lots
>> of other species of small animals over all the large livestock animals
>> humans raise, which is to say, over all livestock. But ****wit doesn't
>> really care about animals at all; his entire wasted nine-year gag has been
>> nothing but a ****witted cracker troll to try to justify his own lust for
>> "meat...gravy."
>
>
>Which in itself, ironically, is a fine lust indeed. Too bad he has to
>besmirch it with pea-brained tales about chickens "getting to experience
>life".

Which chickens do you think don't experience life, Goo?

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid ****wit
and a stupid credulous Southern Baptist shitworm - lied and presented no
challenge:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:25:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating
>>>>>>>> live
>>>>>>>> ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience
>>>>>>>> life",
>>>>>>>> that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>>>>>>> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
>>>>>>> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:
>>>>>> Because there's no point to it.
>>>>> There is if you're capable of having consideration for animals.
>>>> No, there isn't, no point at all.
>>> There's certainly no point to giving the phony, philosophically empty and
>>> unsound "consideration" that ****wit falsely says he gives and cynically
>>> urges others to give. ****wit stupidly insists that giving consideration
>>> to the lives livestock *might* lead, if they exist, must automatically
>>> translate into thinking the livestock "ought" to exist. It's bullshit, of
>>> course, and there's no point in making that absurd leap.
>>>
>>> *Any* reasonable person might give consideration to the quality of live
>>> that actual livestock lead, but *NO* reasonable person would warp that
>>> consideration to reach a conclusion that livestock "ought" to exist, as
>>> the stupid cracker ****wit David Harrison does.
>>>
>>> Of course, ****wit doesn't give any consideration to animals' lives at
>>> all. He only cares about the products derived from animals; that is
>>> abundantly well established.
>> But, as he composes his messages he pictures idyllic scenes of animals
>> eating and humping and crapping,
>
> I remember the farming conditions I've personally witnessed
> and been around.

You haven't witnessed any.


>> at times undoubtedly with him involved.
>> Surely, he argues, such "consideration" is meaningful.
>>
>> No, we say, not in the least.
>
> That's because

It's because the phony, bullshit "consideration" you demand is not
called for.


>>>>>> In fact it's probably the most pointless
>>>>>> idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the
>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>> we provide them, that's it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, they're
>>>>>>>>>> tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>>>>>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>>>>>>>> from personal experience around both.
>>>>>>>> So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>>>>>>> Of course that's not it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or what is it?
>>>>>>> Try again.
>>>>>> I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
>>>>>> but not pigs.
>>>>> At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
>>>>> of mice, even though I still don't go along with you on it. I don't
>>>>> have reason to believe mice enjoy life more than some chickens
>>>>> or cattle either...it depends on what their particular life is like.
>>>>> Then there's the ever present fact that humans can deliberately
>>>>> provide decent lives for chickens and cattle better than they
>>>>> can for any wild animals. Also, what is the average lifespan
>>>>> of wild mice in comparison to chickens and cattle? I feel certain
>>>>> that the average life span of even broiler chickens is longer than
>>>>> the average life span of wild mice, and cattle much more than
>>>>> that. So far we have no reason to favor your mice over livestock,
>>>>> and most likely we never will have.
>>>> Yes we do. A mouse weighs a couple of ounces, a cow weighs a half a ton.
>>>> Favoring mice means that many thousand-fold more lives are supported on
>>>> the same resource. That at the very least makes it absurd to favor
>>>> livestock.
>>> If ****wit *really* were concerned with the moral meaning of animals'
>>> "getting to experience life", then he should, indeed, favor mice and lots
>>> of other species of small animals over all the large livestock animals
>>> humans raise, which is to say, over all livestock. But ****wit doesn't
>>> really care about animals at all; his entire wasted nine-year gag has been
>>> nothing but a ****witted cracker troll to try to justify his own lust for
>>> "meat...gravy."
>>
>> Which in itself, ironically, is a fine lust indeed. Too bad he has to
>> besmirch it with pea-brained tales about chickens "getting to experience
>> life".
>
> Which chickens do you think don't experience life,

No one thinks any chickens that are alive aren't alive, Goo.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:25:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>news:LOWdnYOPFb1HvmbanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@earthlink. com...
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating
>>>>>>>> live
>>>>>>>> ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience
>>>>>>>> life",
>>>>>>>> that's the nonsense aspect with your position.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
>>>>>>> of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because there's no point to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is if you're capable of having consideration for animals.
>>>>
>>>> No, there isn't, no point at all.
>>>
>>> There's certainly no point to giving the phony, philosophically empty
>>> and
>>> unsound "consideration" that ****wit falsely says he gives and cynically
>>> urges others to give. ****wit stupidly insists that giving
>>> consideration
>>> to the lives livestock *might* lead, if they exist, must automatically
>>> translate into thinking the livestock "ought" to exist. It's bullshit,
>>> of
>>> course, and there's no point in making that absurd leap.
>>>
>>> *Any* reasonable person might give consideration to the quality of live
>>> that actual livestock lead, but *NO* reasonable person would warp that
>>> consideration to reach a conclusion that livestock "ought" to exist, as
>>> the stupid cracker ****wit David Harrison does.
>>>
>>> Of course, ****wit doesn't give any consideration to animals' lives at
>>> all. He only cares about the products derived from animals; that is
>>> abundantly well established.
>>
>>But, as he composes his messages he pictures idyllic scenes of animals
>>eating and humping and crapping,
>
> I remember the farming conditions I've personally witnessed
> and been around. They are home to the animals.

Been to any Cargill facilities lately?

>>at times undoubtedly with him involved.
>>Surely, he argues, such "consideration" is meaningful.
>>
>>No, we say, not in the least.
>
> That's because you don't have any idea what you're trying
> to talk about, much less what I'm telling you about.

I'm talking about your ridiculous belief that idyllic memories of farm
animals means that anyone should care if livestock "get to experience life".
Nothing could be less important.

>
>>>>>> In fact it's probably the most pointless
>>>>>> idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the
>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>> we provide them, that's it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, they're
>>>>>>>>>> tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe even very young chickens do. That is
>>>>>>>>> from personal experience around both.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course that's not it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or what is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
>>>>>> but not pigs.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
>>>>> of mice, even though I still don't go along with you on it. I don't
>>>>> have reason to believe mice enjoy life more than some chickens
>>>>> or cattle either...it depends on what their particular life is like.
>>>>> Then there's the ever present fact that humans can deliberately
>>>>> provide decent lives for chickens and cattle better than they
>>>>> can for any wild animals. Also, what is the average lifespan
>>>>> of wild mice in comparison to chickens and cattle? I feel certain
>>>>> that the average life span of even broiler chickens is longer than
>>>>> the average life span of wild mice, and cattle much more than
>>>>> that. So far we have no reason to favor your mice over livestock,
>>>>> and most likely we never will have.
>>>>
>>>> Yes we do. A mouse weighs a couple of ounces, a cow weighs a half a
>>>> ton.
>>>> Favoring mice means that many thousand-fold more lives are supported on
>>>> the same resource. That at the very least makes it absurd to favor
>>>> livestock.
>>>
>>> If ****wit *really* were concerned with the moral meaning of animals'
>>> "getting to experience life", then he should, indeed, favor mice and
>>> lots
>>> of other species of small animals over all the large livestock animals
>>> humans raise, which is to say, over all livestock. But ****wit doesn't
>>> really care about animals at all; his entire wasted nine-year gag has
>>> been
>>> nothing but a ****witted cracker troll to try to justify his own lust
>>> for
>>> "meat...gravy."
>>
>>
>>Which in itself, ironically, is a fine lust indeed. Too bad he has to
>>besmirch it with pea-brained tales about chickens "getting to experience
>>life".
>
> Which chickens do you think don't experience life, Goo?

Stop making an ass of yourself and go do something worthwhile.