JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
legitimate questions.

Jethro wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?


JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"


Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>legitimate questions.
>
>Jethro wrote,
>
> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
> raise it at all?"
>
> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> at all?"
>
> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> at all?"
>
>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

I've asked you "ARAs" more than once for whom or what it would
be better not to raise animals to eat. So far all we know is that it would
be better for people who are disturbed because humans eat meat, and
that's probably about the end of it. One thing we know for sure is that
it wouldn't be better for animals...we do know that Gonad.

>Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?
>JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
>civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
>attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
>to live" only because they are bred to be eaten.

Probably because billions of them get to live only because they are
bred to be eaten. Why do you "think" it's important for that very significant
fact to be disregarded? We know why, because it suggests that the elimination
of animals raised for food might not be the most ethical course to take.

>He
>keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.
>
>Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:
>
>1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
>attention
> at all?

Because you "ARAs" want people to consider their deaths, but you are terrified
if they also consider their lives. You are terrified that people might consider an
ethically equivalent or superior alternative to your elimination objective.

Why do you think your little fact that the elimination of farm animals would
not harm farm animals merits a LOT! of attention, but the fact that billions of
them live because we raise them merits none?

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods >
wrote:
>
> >JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
> >legitimate questions.
> >
> >Jethro wrote,
> >
> > "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
> > raise it at all?"
> >
> > "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
> > animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> > at all?"
> >
> > "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
> > animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> > at all?"
> >
> >He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
> >"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>
> I've asked you "ARAs" more than once for whom or what it would
> be better not to raise animals to eat. So far all we know is that it would
> be better for people who are disturbed because humans eat meat, and
> that's probably about the end of it. One thing we know for sure is that
> it wouldn't be better for animals...we do know that Gonad.
>
> >Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?
> >JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
> >civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
> >attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
> >to live" only because they are bred to be eaten.
>
> Probably because billions of them get to live only because they are
> bred to be eaten. Why do you "think" it's important for that very
significant
> fact to be disregarded? We know why, because it suggests that the
elimination
> of animals raised for food might not be the most ethical course to take.
>
> >He
> >keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.
> >
> >Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:
> >
> >1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
> >attention
> > at all?
>
> Because you "ARAs" want people to consider their deaths, but you are
terrified
> if they also consider their lives. You are terrified that people might
consider an
> ethically equivalent or superior alternative to your elimination
objective.
>
> Why do you think your little fact that the elimination of farm animals
would
> not harm farm animals merits a LOT! of attention, but the fact that
billions of
> them live because we raise them merits none?

Animals are put on earth to flavor barbecue sauce and pasta.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:05:15 -0700, "Pale in Wales" > wrote:

>Animals are put on earth to flavor barbecue sauce and pasta.

Well, if they really are "put on earth" you may have a good point:

Leviticus 1

5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
wood on the fire.
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering
made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:05:15 -0700, "Pale in Wales" >
wrote:
>
> >Animals are put on earth to flavor barbecue sauce and pasta.
>
> Well, if they really are "put on earth" you may have a good point:

Animals were created by the gods, Hormel and Jimmy Dean.


>
> Leviticus 1
>
> 5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
> sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
> altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
> 6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
> 7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
> wood on the fire.
> 8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
> head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
> 9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
> is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an
offering
> made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>
>
>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>legitimate questions.
>>
>>Jethro wrote,
>>
>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>> raise it at all?"
>>
>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>> at all?"
>>
>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>> at all?"
>>
>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>
>
> I've asked you "ARAs"

No.

> more than once for whom or what it would
> be better not to raise animals to eat.

They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
your answer.

Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
yourself to people who are NOT "aras". Most of the
time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
life" nonsense.

Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
living, and you gave your answer:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.

>
>>Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?
>>JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
>>civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
>>attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
>>to live" only because they are bred to be eaten.
>
>
> Probably because billions of them get to live only because they are
> bred to be eaten.

No, that's the factlette. That's not why the factlette
is important. I want to know why he thinks the
factlette deserves any attention at all. Feel free to
explain it yourself; you never have done.

>
>>He
>>keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.
>>
>>Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:
>>
>>1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any attention
>> at all?
>
>
> Because you "ARAs" blah blah blah

No. I want to know why he thinks the factlette
deserves any attention. His thinking it deserves any
attention cannot be dependent on what "those 'aras'" do
or say.

>
> Why do you think your little fact that the elimination of farm animals would
> not harm farm animals merits a LOT! of attention

Because you think it WOULD harm farm animals, and I
show that it would not.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>legitimate questions.
>>>
>>>Jethro wrote,
>>>
>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>> raise it at all?"
>>>
>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>> at all?"
>>>
>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>> at all?"
>>>
>>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>>
>>
>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>
>No.
>
>> more than once for whom or what it would
>> be better not to raise animals to eat.
>
>They answer,

You agree with "them". You are one of them.

>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals

And exactly why is that?

>they
>don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>your answer.

You didn't answer the question. You simply changed
the subject. LOL! You are hilarious Gonad. In a post where
you are criticising someone for being afraid to answer
questions, you obviously are horribly afraid to answer the
very same question. Here you go, slink away from it again:

For whom or what it would be better not to raise animals
to eat?

>Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>yourself to people who are NOT "aras".

Most of the time I'm addressing you and Dutch Gonad,
and you are both "ARAs". Swamp is about the only other
person claiming to be an "AR" opponent who appears to
care at all, and all of his arguments are "AR" arguments.

>Most of the
>time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>life" nonsense.
>
>Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>living,

And I asked who would benefit if they are. Who would
Gonad? What would Gonad?

wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>>legitimate questions.
>>>>
>>>>Jethro wrote,
>>>>
>>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>>> raise it at all?"
>>>>
>>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>> at all?"
>>>>
>>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>> at all?"
>>>>
>>>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>more than once for whom or what it would
>>>be better not to raise animals to eat.
>>
>>They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals
>
>
> And exactly why is that?

Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
wrong, not I.

Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
somehow wrong, so much so that you have offered the
"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.

>
>
>>they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>your answer.
>
>
> You didn't answer the question.

It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
been asked of JethroFW and you:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?

Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
Then, maybe, someone will address your question.

>
>
>>Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>>yourself to people who are NOT "aras".
>
>
> Most of the time I'm addressing

People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
"aras", ****wit.

>
>>Most of the
>>time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>>who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>>life" nonsense.
>>
>>Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>>loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>>living,
>
>
> And I asked who would benefit if they are.

Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
answered my question. You will not evade my question
by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
my question:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
"better" for the currently non-existent animals
themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
"better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:44:22 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>>>>>legitimate questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jethro wrote,
>>>>>
>>>>> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
>>>>> raise it at all?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
>>>>> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
>>>>> at all?"
>>>>>
>>>>>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>>>>>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've asked you "ARAs"
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>
>>>>more than once for whom or what it would
>>>>be better not to raise animals to eat.
>>>
>>>They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
>>>- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals
>>
>>
>> And exactly why is that?
>
>Ask an "ara", ****wit. They're the ones who think it's
>wrong, not I.

There is nothing wrong with it Gonad. We have established
that.

>Actually, ****wit, ask yourself: YOU think it's
>somehow wrong,

How Gonad?

>so much so that you have offered the
>"getting to experience life" bullshit as mitigation.
>Why, ****wit? In what sense do you think it's wrong,
>so much so that you need to mitigate your wrong deed?
>Don't tell us you don't think it's wrong, ****wit; it
>is perfectly clear you DO think it's wrong. Tell us how.

Let's see...how could I think it's wrong? Because it
provides them with life? No, that's not it. Because it
means less life for them? No, it means more life for them.
Hmmm....how is it wrong? I don't see how it could be
wrong Gonad. You are the one making the claim, so
it's up to you to prove how I think it's wrong.

>>>they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
>>>your answer.
>>
>>
>> You didn't answer the question.
>
>It was a stupid question that was merely EVASION on
>your part, ****wit. You are only asking it because you
>are AFRAID to answer the much BETTER question that has
>been asked of JethroFW and you:
>
> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> if animals come into existence?
>
>Answer it, ****wit. Answer it now, and honestly.
>Then, maybe, someone will address your question.
>
>>
>>
>>>Of course, most of the time, you are addressing
>>>yourself to people who are NOT "aras".
>>
>>
>> Most of the time I'm addressing
>
>People who are not "aras", and who you KNOW are not
>"aras", ****wit.

You are an "ARA" Gonad.

>>>Most of the
>>>time, you are addressing yourself to opponents of "ar"
>>>who disagree with your foolish "getting to experience
>>>life" nonsense.
>>>
>>>Anyway, you were asked for whom or what would it be a
>>>loss if "future farm animals" were "prevented" from
>>>living,
>>
>>
>> And I asked who would benefit if they are.
>
>Your question is not permitted, because you haven't
>answered my question. You will not evade my question
>by asking a deliberately evasive one, ****wit. Answer
>my question:
>
> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> if animals come into existence?

It can be good for them without being "better" for
them Gonad. A decent life is good for those who have
one imo, and you "ARAs" can say nothing to change
that pov.

>ANSWER it, ****wit. NOW. If your answer is that it is
>"better" for the currently non-existent animals
>themselves, then you are dead in the water, because I
>have already conclusively shown that it CANNOT be
>"better" for "them": "they" don't exist, and something
>can only be "better" for something that *already* exists.

Then it's not better for anything to live than not to live
Gonad, so it's not "better" for livestock to live than not
to. We should think of human life and wilflife in the same
way.
Okay Gonad. It's your turn AGAIN, to slink away from
the question. And there is a "better" in your case, because
you "ARAs" think it would be better to stop raising them.

For whom or what would it be better to stop raising them?

(prediction: the Gonad will not answer the question, because
the answer is that it would be better for people who are
disturbed by humans eating meat.)