<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> asked an eliminationist:
>>>>
>>>>> Why would people try to
>>>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>>>
>>>>So that animals don't suffer?
>>>>
>>>>> They would not.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>
>>> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
>>> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
>>> insist that no one should.
>>
>>Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why
>>is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?
>
> If they don't care as you insist they should not, then they
> would not care. Do you want people to believe you are so stupid
> you can't comprehend that not caring means not caring? LOL!!! You
> eliminationists do that, that much is for sure. You also pretend
> to be too stupid to understand that having consideration for
> animals' lives means having consideration for their lives, and
> Rupert claims to be too stupid to comprehend what it means to
> have a life of positive value. You probably want people to think
> you're too stupid to understand it too, though in the past you
> have claimed to have had some clue.

Answer the question, why is not enough to care about animal suffering? What
are you contributing TO THE ANIMALS by "considering their lives" beyond what
is gained by caring about their suffering?

I'll tell you, nothing meaningful.

On 5/25/2010 11:41 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> asked an eliminationist:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would people try to
>>>>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>>>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>>>>
>>>>> So that animals don't suffer?
>>>>>
>>>>>> They would not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
>>>> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
>>>> insist that no one should.
>>>
>>> Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared
>>> punk. Why
>>> is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?
>>
>> If they don't care as you insist they should not, then they
>> would not care. Do you want people to believe you are so stupid
>> you can't comprehend that not caring means not caring? LOL!!! You
>> eliminationists do that, that much is for sure. You also pretend
>> to be too stupid to understand that having consideration for
>> animals' lives means having consideration for their lives, and
>> Rupert claims to be too stupid to comprehend what it means to
>> have a life of positive value. You probably want people to think
>> you're too stupid to understand it too, though in the past you
>> have claimed to have had some clue.
>
> Answer the question, why is not enough to care about animal suffering?
> What are you contributing TO THE ANIMALS by "considering their lives"
> beyond what is gained by caring about their suffering?
>
> I'll tell you, nothing meaningful.

His "consideration" for their lives means wanting them to exist. That's
*all* it means. It shows that he /still/ believes it is "better" for
them to exist than never exist.

On 5/25/2010 9:10 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, pig-****er - lied
again:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 Fred C. Dobbs correctly pointed out:
>
>> You give no consideration to their lives, Goo - none at all.
>
> "There is no "consideration" to be given."
>
> "Nothing to consider."

Both are correct statements, Goo. That's why I'm not really criticizing
you for not "considering" their lives, Goo, because there is no
consideration to be give. What I *am* criticizing you for, Goo, is
lying - for saying you give "consideration" to their lives, when very
clearly you don't. I'm also pointing out - yes! - that you are a filthy
hypocrite for attacking others for not giving future farm animals' lives
any "consideration", when it is very clear that you don't give any.

You're a liar and a hypocrite, Goo. That makes you a bad person - not
merely wrong, but bad. You're a shitbag, Goo.

On 5/27/2010 10:18 AM, Mrs.Cumstain bullshitted:
> On May 27, 10:48 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/25/2010 9:10 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, incestuous cracker -
>> bullshitted:
>>
>>> [bullshit snipped]
>>
>> You're a liar, Goo - a liar and a hypocrite. Oh...and stupid, too.
>
>
>
> LOL!!

Yes, Goo's stupidity /is/ funny. So is yours, Runny.

On 5/25/2010 9:10 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison - evasively blabbered:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
>
>> You give no consideration to their lives, Goo - none at all.
>
> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Fred C. Dobbs
>
> "Nothing to consider." - Fred C. Dobbs


Correct, ****wit: there is no consideration to be given, so you don't
even try to give any; you just bullshit about it.

By wanting livestock animals to exist, ****wit, you are not
"considering" their lives in any way. What you are considering,
****wit, is your wish to consume animal goods and services: meat,
leather, animal combats. You are only considering yourself, ****wit.

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:41:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> asked an eliminationist:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would people try to
>>>>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>>>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>>>>
>>>>>So that animals don't suffer?
>>>>>
>>>>>> They would not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not?
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
>>>> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
>>>> insist that no one should.
>>>
>>>Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why
>>>is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?
>>
>> If they don't care as you insist they should not, then they
>> would not care. Do you want people to believe you are so stupid
>> you can't comprehend that not caring means not caring? LOL!!! You
>> eliminationists do that, that much is for sure. You also pretend
>> to be too stupid to understand that having consideration for
>> animals' lives means having consideration for their lives, and
>> Rupert claims to be too stupid to comprehend what it means to
>> have a life of positive value. You probably want people to think
>> you're too stupid to understand it too, though in the past you
>> have claimed to have had some clue.
>
>Answer the question, why is not enough to care about animal suffering? What
>are you contributing TO THE ANIMALS by "considering their lives" beyond what
>is gained by caring about their suffering?
>
>I'll tell you, nothing meaningful.

Nothing meaningful to YOU who want to see them eliminated.
The only thing you care about is the fact that it disturbs you
for humans to eat meat. Since you want that to end regardless of
the influence it has on ANY animals, you of course refuse to
consider anything positive for those animals you want to see
eliminated. One of the ways I know you're opposed to AW is the
fact that you are OPPOSED to considering anything positive about
the lives of livestock. LOL...no one in favor of AW would be
opposed to that.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the coward - lied:

> On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:41:52 -0700, > wrote:
>
>>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the coward - lied:
>>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the coward - lied:
>>>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the coward - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would people try to
>>>>>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>>>>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So that animals don't suffer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They would not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
>>>>> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
>>>>> insist that no one should.
>>>>
>>>> Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why
>>>> is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?
>>>
>>> If they don't care as you insist they should not, then they
>>> would not care. Do you want people to believe you are so stupid
>>> you can't comprehend that not caring means not caring? LOL!!! You
>>> eliminationists do that, that much is for sure. You also pretend
>>> to be too stupid to understand that having consideration for
>>> animals' lives means having consideration for their lives, and
>>> Rupert claims to be too stupid to comprehend what it means to
>>> have a life of positive value. You probably want people to think
>>> you're too stupid to understand it too, though in the past you
>>> have claimed to have had some clue.
>>
>> Answer the question, why is not enough to care about animal suffering? What
>> are you contributing TO THE ANIMALS by "considering their lives" beyond what
>> is gained by caring about their suffering?
>>
>> I'll tell you, nothing meaningful.
>
> Nothing meaningful to

Nothing meaningful, period.

You don't give animals' lives any consideration, Goo. This is very well
established.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:41:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>>Answer the question, why is not enough to care about animal suffering?
>>What
>>are you contributing TO THE ANIMALS by "considering their lives" beyond
>>what
>>is gained by caring about their suffering?
>>
>>I'll tell you, nothing meaningful.
>
> Nothing meaningful to YOU who want to see them eliminated.

Answer the question, what does "considering their lives" do for them that
caring about their suffering doesn't do?

You'll whiff off again of course because the answer is NOTHING, and you
won't admit that your argument means NOTHING..

On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:11:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:41:16 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:41:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> asked an eliminationist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would people try to
>>>>>>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>>>>>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So that animals don't suffer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They would not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
>>>>>> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
>>>>>> insist that no one should.
>>>>>
>>>>>Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why
>>>>>is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?
>>>>
>>>> If they don't care as you insist they should not, then they
>>>> would not care. Do you want people to believe you are so stupid
>>>> you can't comprehend that not caring means not caring? LOL!!! You
>>>> eliminationists do that, that much is for sure. You also pretend
>>>> to be too stupid to understand that having consideration for
>>>> animals' lives means having consideration for their lives, and
>>>> Rupert claims to be too stupid to comprehend what it means to
>>>> have a life of positive value. You probably want people to think
>>>> you're too stupid to understand it too, though in the past you
>>>> have claimed to have had some clue.
>>>
>>>Answer the question, why is not enough to care about animal suffering? What
>>>are you contributing TO THE ANIMALS by "considering their lives" beyond what
>>>is gained by caring about their suffering?
>>>
>>>I'll tell you, nothing meaningful.
>>
>> Nothing meaningful to YOU who want to see them eliminated.
>>The only thing you care about is the fact that it disturbs you
>>for humans to eat meat. Since you want that to end regardless of
>>the influence it has on ANY animals, you of course refuse to
>>consider anything positive for those animals you want to see
>>eliminated. One of the ways I know you're opposed to AW is the
>>fact that you are OPPOSED to considering anything positive about
>>the lives of livestock. LOL...no one in favor of AW would be
>>opposed to that.
>
>Answer the question, what does "considering their lives" do for them

For one thing it gets people like myself to do things like
buy cage free eggs. For another it encourages people like myself
to put some insects out of the house instead of killing all of
them regardless. It also encourages me to allow spiders to live
for extra periods of weeks and months before I finally kill them.
I have even released some rodents like mice and rats that I've
caught in my own home--knowing it's always best to just kill
them--because I considered their lives. In those cases for at
least a period of time is was good for them. Also, when raising
chickens it encouraged me to once in a while let a hen set and
hatch off some chicks just so the chicks could experience life,
even though I didn't want any chickens raised out of their
particular mother.

>that caring about their suffering doesn't do?

LOL! The ONLY thing obsessing over their suffering while
denying their pleasures does, is to support elimination. Your
clueless ignorance in that area is one of the things that lets me
know you're in favor of the misnomer over decent AW.

>You'll whiff off again of course because the answer is NOTHING, and you
>won't admit that your argument means NOTHING..

It's meaningful to commercial laying hens enjoying being
raised in conditions in which they are not restricted to battery
cages, which those of us who actually do buy cage free eggs
appreciate enough to spend the extra money to support. Your
clueless ignorance in that area is another one of the things that
lets me know you're in favor of the misnomer over decent AW...

On 6/1/2010 9:16 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward -
fearfully ran away again:

> On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:11:59 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:41:16 -0400, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - fearfully ran away again:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:41:52 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - fearfully ran away again:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:15:11 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - fearfully ran away again:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:24:14 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - fearfully ran away again:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would people try to
>>>>>>>>> make a point of treating animals better if they don't care
>>>>>>>>> anything at all about the animals' lives?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So that animals don't suffer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They would not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL! Because they would not care. Duh. Fortunately for the
>>>>>>> animals some people DO care even though you eliminationists
>>>>>>> insist that no one should.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answer the question instead of snipping and hiding like a scared punk. Why
>>>>>> is not wanting animals to suffer not enough?
>>>>>
>>>>> If they don't care as you insist they should not, then they
>>>>> would not care. Do you want people to believe you are so stupid
>>>>> you can't comprehend that not caring means not caring? LOL!!! You
>>>>> eliminationists do that, that much is for sure. You also pretend
>>>>> to be too stupid to understand that having consideration for
>>>>> animals' lives means having consideration for their lives, and
>>>>> Rupert claims to be too stupid to comprehend what it means to
>>>>> have a life of positive value. You probably want people to think
>>>>> you're too stupid to understand it too, though in the past you
>>>>> have claimed to have had some clue.
>>>>
>>>> Answer the question, why is not enough to care about animal suffering? What
>>>> are you contributing TO THE ANIMALS by "considering their lives" beyond what
>>>> is gained by caring about their suffering?
>>>>
>>>> I'll tell you, nothing meaningful.
>>>
>>> Nothing meaningful to YOU who

Nothing meaningful - period.


>>
>> Answer the question, what does "considering their lives" do for them
>
> For one thing it gets people like myself to do things like
> buy cage free eggs.

No, it doesn't. You don't buy "cage free eggs", Goo.

But now you're equivocating again, Goo. Now you're talking about
*quality* of life, not "their lives", Goo. You're pretending - ha ha
ha! - that you're "considering" the lives of animals that exist, Goo,
but when you shriek and howl at "aras" for not showing any
"consideration", you're talking about non-existent animals.

You can't do it, Goo - you just can't do it.