Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-05-2004, 09:43 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

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.


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 07:00 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

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?
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 07:05 PM
Pale in Wales
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?


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.


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 07:44 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

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.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 08:03 PM
Pale in Wales
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?


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.





  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-05-2004, 08:44 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

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.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 09:06 PM
[email protected]omail.com
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

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?
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 09:14 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and goodquestions?

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.

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 09:41 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is the Gonad so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

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.)
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 09:51 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is ****wit David Harrison (Atlanta, GA) so horribly afraidto answer simple and good questions?

****wit David Harrison wrote:

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.


ACKNOWLEDGE it, ****wit: you weren't asking "aras",
you were asking OPPONENTS of "ar" who disagree with
your stupid, discredited, ****witted "animals getting
to experience life" bullshit. NOW, ****wit. We're
tired of waiting.




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


YOU believe there is something wrong with it, ****wit.
That's why you feel you need the mitigation. What do
you feel is wrong with it, ****wit? Don't lie and say
"nothing", ****wit: we all *know* you feel there is
something so wrong with it that you must offer
mitigation for doing it.



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



How?


You're the one who thinks there's something wrong with
it, ****wit, so you tell us. What I believe is that
you feel exactly the affinity for animals that JethroFW
discusses, and this affinity makes you intuitively
believe that there's something morally bad about
killing them. Thus, you need mitigation for what
you're doing that you believe to be bad, and the
"getting to experience life" bullshit is what you could
develop.



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.



I don't see how it could be wrong


That's a lie. SOMEHOW, ****wit, you think it's at
least a little bit wrong. Think about it a bit more,
then get back to us.



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.


Answer the question, ****wit:

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

ANSWER it NOW, ****wit. Stop evading.



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"


I am not an "ara", ****wit, and you have known I'm not
for the entire time that I've been highlighting your
stupidity: almost FIVE years.


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


Coming into existence is not "good" or "better" for any
living entity, ****wit. You know this. I have
explained it, and you know it. "Life" is not a
benefit, ****wit.

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


THE END, ****wit. That's all. "[i]t's not better for
anything to live than not to live", ****wit, and you
have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it, ****wit:
you have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it NOW,
****wit.


Get out of these groups, ****wit. You have finally
conceded a LOSS on the ONLY point you ever wanted to
make. You failed to make it, and you lost. Get out.



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 11:03 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is ****wit David Harrison (Atlanta, GA) so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions?

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT, the Gonad wrote:

Mr. David Harrison wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:14:21 GMT, Wilson (the Gonad) Woods wrote:


You're the one who thinks there's something wrong with
it, ****wit, so you tell us. What I believe is that
you feel exactly the affinity for animals that JethroFW
discusses, and this affinity makes you intuitively
believe that there's something morally bad about
killing them. Thus, you need mitigation for what
you're doing


I'm not doing anything Gonad. And what other people
are doing, would be done even if I had never been
born. Nope, that's not it either.

that you believe to be bad, and the
"getting to experience life" bullshit is what you could
develop.


They do experience life Gonad. Billions of them are
doing it right now.

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.



I don't see how it could be wrong


That's a lie. SOMEHOW, ****wit, you think it's at
least a little bit wrong. Think about it a bit more,
then get back to us.


Nah, I haven't found it yet.

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.


Answer the question, ****wit:

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

ANSWER it NOW, ****wit. Stop evading.



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"


I am not an "ara",


Yes you are Gonad.

****wit, and you have known I'm not


How could I know that, when no one has ever been able
to provide an example of your opposition to it?

for the entire time that I've been highlighting your
stupidity: almost FIVE years.


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


Coming into existence is not "good"


So far it has been for me.

or "better" for any
living entity, ****wit. You know this. I have
explained it, and you know it. "Life" is not a
benefit, ****wit.

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


THE END, ****wit. That's all. "[i]t's not better for
anything to live than not to live",


It's still good for some things to live imo. Gonad. You moron!
It is not good for you to live. It is not good for your son to live.
It is good for some farm animals to live. It is not good for some
farm animals to live.

****wit, and you
have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it, ****wit:
you have no basis for bashing "vegans". Say it NOW,
****wit.


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.

note: he has proven me right once at the time of this post)


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-05-2004, 03:52 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" wrote:


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


It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal
2/ Animal Kind
3/ My sandwich
4/ World as a whole


Well, that's four things. We still have yet to learn for whom or
what it might be "better"/"more moral" to prevent them from
coming into existence. The "ARAs" consistently have nothing
to offer, and the Gonad is the best example of them all.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-05-2004, 04:50 AM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

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



It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal


NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.

2/ Animal Kind


No such thing.

3/ My sandwich


No one cares.

4/ World as a whole


No.

Bad answers, as I expected, and as you knew you would
provide.

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-05-2004, 12:39 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:08:03 GMT, Wilson Woods wrote:

wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" wrote:


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

It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal
2/ Animal Kind
3/ My sandwich
4/ World as a whole



Well, that's four things.


Four unimportant and/or wrong pieces of crap.


We still have yet to learn for whom or
what it might be "better"/"more moral" to prevent them from
coming into existence. The "ARAs" consistently have nothing
to offer, and the Gonad is the best example of them all.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 20 01-11-2008 05:29 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 3 26-10-2008 03:41 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 0 26-10-2008 12:22 AM
simple question, bet the answer isnt..... snpm Winemaking 4 12-04-2007 06:04 PM
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions? Wilson Woods Vegan 28 22-05-2004 02:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017