There is an elusive myth in some ngs that Goo, aka:

Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the dog/ / elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/****tard/Apoo/Ted Bell/ /
Jay Santos/ / Rudy Canoza/
Trappist/ / Goobernicus/the Gonad

is an opponent of "AR". Humorous. When taking the myth straight
to the horse's ass--straight to Goobernicus himself--we can find nothing
to support it. Even with Goo's "assistance" we can find no example
of him opposing "AR". If anyone can provide any example(s) of Goo's
supposed opposition(s) to "AR", it would be much appreciated and
possibly a source of pitiable amusement.

In contrast to Goo's absence of opposition to "AR", his support for
it ABOUNDS! I have seen no one else promote acceptance of their
elimination objective to anywhere near the degree that Goo has done.
From the prolific Universe of Goobal support for "AR", I've selected
what I consider to be a small group of his quotes arranged in a way
that explains exactly how Goo wants everybody to feel about their
elimination objective. Goo himself has recently done some crying,
sobbing that I mangled his quotes. Now is the time Goo. Now is the
time to take your beliefs and examine them in some detail. Take this
collection of your beliefs "thought" by "thought", and explain which
of your beliefs you disagree with--if any--and why:
__________________________________________________ _______
We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing
ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration.
You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it
people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the
animals somehow mitigates the harm.
Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for
food, then having deliberately caused them to live in
the first place does not mitigate the wrong in any way
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
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
killing the animals needlessly and merely for human
convenience is the worst violation of their rights
humans deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
thing to do.
Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions.
You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself.
[That "other bizarre direction" is the idea of deliberately
providing decent AW for the animals we raise to eat]
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals
not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

****wit David Harrison lied:

> There is an elusive myth

Don't use words and concepts you don't really know,
****wit.