On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:44:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> The fool continues to wonder:
>
>Indeed...
>
>>>>>And then?
>>>
>>>> Then you can't understand, because you somehow have unlearned
>>>>about life sometimes having a positive value to the animal(s). So you're
>>>>stuck right there, unable to continue, unable to learn more, unable to
>>>>even comprehend anything regarding positive value TO THE ANIMALS.
>>
>>>Stop promoting The Logic of the Larder ****wit, it'll never work.
>>
>> Your imaginary talking "AR" pig is just a meaningless fantasy.
>
>It's not meaningless, you just don't understand it.

I understand considering the fact that live has positive value to
some farm animals is NOT sophistry, and that YOU/"ARAs"/"AR"
TALKING PIGS are lying when you say it is.

I understand that pigs are no longer filthily housed.

I unserstand that it doesn't matter to pigs whether they are butchered
or not in the end.

>> But even though Goo told your stupid gullible ass differently, life
>> does have positive value to some farm animals.
>
>Sure it does, and kudos for the person who facilitates the conditions that
>cause "positive value" as opposed to a person who facilitates "negative
>value" (i.e. suffering). But this has nothing to do with vegans.

So people who want to contribute to decent lives for farm animals with
their lifestlye should NOT be vegans. Instead they should be consumers
of things which provide decent lives for farm animals.

>To use people as an analogy, some children's lives
[...]

Shove that shit back up your ass.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:13:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to
>>>>>>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>>>> them for
>>>>>>>>>> food,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what
>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>say,
>>>>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue
>>>>>> pointing
>>>>>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>>>>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>>>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe
>>>>>that
>>>>>if
>>>>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals
>>>>>or
>>>>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the
>>>>>same
>>>>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>>>>livestock.
>>>>
>>>> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
>>>> animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>>>>
>>>> 1) pigs
>>>>
>>>> 2) chickens
>>>>
>>>> 3) turkeys
>>>>
>>>> 4) sheep
>>>>
>>>> 5) cattle
>>>
>>>Why do you need to think about any at all?
>>
>> Because YOU brought it up you moron. I know that just because
>> you brought it up doesn't mean you have any clue what you're trying
>> to talk about, so this is to confirm that you don't, AGAIN.
>
>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>products. I'm asking you why.

Because life has a positive value for some of them. Remember you
pasted something about that even though you never understood it?
But some of us do understand it even though YOU/"ARAs" can not.

>>>If pasture and grain fields used
>>>to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
>>>animal species would rebound.
>>
>> Like what, and why should we support them over livestock?
>>
>>>The list is too long to even start.
>>
>> You just don't have a clue, which is why you are unable to
>> even start.
>
>Don't you know what kinds of animals live in plains, bush and forested
>environments?

I don't know which particular kinds of animals YOU/"ARAs" would
like to see in place of livestock, so of course I don't know why you/'they"
would rather see those particular animals in place of livestock, and of
course don't know why everyone else would or why you/"they" do.

>>>>>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>>>>>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal
>>>>>lives
>>>>>are a good thing per se,
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you
>>>> would
>>>> replace the livestock with.
>>>
>>>We don't need to "replace" them, the land naturally supports wildlife and
>>>unless we have exterminated them completely the same ones will return,
>>>deer,
>>>groundhogs, mice, birds, etc etc... on and on.
>>
>> They are there now you idiot. Name animals that aren't there that
>> somehow
>> would be, and why anyone should want them instead.
>
>All of the ones I mentioned, and many more, in much larger numbers. And
>there are plenty are reaons to want a diversity of animals to exist in the
>wild.

Pleanty of them live in grazing areas already with grazing animals. I'm
convinced they do better in them than in your so beloved crop fields too.

>The question is, why should we think about animal raised in captivity
>as you do and not consider that they exist onlt at the expense of many more
>wild animals?

We should consider it all. It's something else you pasted one time but
YOU/"ARAs" will never understand:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "apostate" >
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:25 GMT

Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Why do you paste things that you don't understand, much less agree
with???

>>>> And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
>>>> in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we
>>>> would
>>>> even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.
>>>
>>>We wouldn't "make the change", it would just happen if we stopped using
>>>those lands and resources for livestock.
>>
>> That WOULD BE THE CHANGE you poor ignorant moron.
>
>So what? There would be a change, whoopee shit. Different animals would
>exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?

That's what I keep asking you. Why should we promote life for which
wild animals instead of livestock, as YOU/"ARAs" pretend that people
might actually do??? Who are you trying to convince me might do that
with their land, btw?

>>>I am merely pointing out that it
>>>would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life"
>>
>> I disbelieve that stupid shit, which is coming from someone who
>> so far appears to have absolutely no clue what he's trying to talk
>> about (that's you).
>
>I don't care what you claim to disbelieve, make a valid argument against it.

I have seen a number of examples where grazing land got used for
something else, and it has NEVER provided life for more wild animals.
Instead it has ALWAYS provided for much much fewer wild animals,
so of course I must believe you're just lying again.

>>>as you
>>>falsely argue.
>>
>> Then explain what makes you think that we would just let land
>> sit around not being used for anything other than to allow wildlife
>> to live there.
>
>What's wrong with land being left alone? It's good for it, and for
>biodiversity. We only need so many malls and condos.
>
>> Explain how YOU/"ARAs" would get all the people
>> who are making money raising farm animals, to allow their land
>> to sit and do nothing just so these imaginary wild animals you're
>> fantasising about but are unable to describe can live there without
>> the livestock being there also.
>
>I wouldn't "get them" to do anything. It's their land they can do what they
>like with it.

Then they will use it to make money with, not just let it sit there
so wild animals can live on it as YOU/"ARAs" dishonestly,
childishly attempt to get people to stupidly believe that it would!
YOU/"ARAs" are dishonest morons. LOL! Are you going to say
that you're really stupid enough to think that people would believe
grazing areas would just be left to sit there and provide life for wild
animals? LOL...maybe you are that stupid....in fact maybe you're
even stupid enough to believe it yourself.

>>>>>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>>>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal
>>>>>>>****wittery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>>>>>> think about.
>>>>>
>>>>>You aren't pointing out any facts,
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie.
>>>
>>>It's a fact.
>>>
>>>>>you are selecting information
>>>>
>>>> Proving that it was a lie.
>>>
>>>No
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>that you
>>>>>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
>>>>
>>>> What information doesn't?
>>>
>>>See above.
>>
>> There is none. If you humorously believe there is, then just quote
>> whatever it is you think does the job and we can laugh about your
>> attempt.
>
>You ignore the fact that livestock occupy land and consume food and water
>resources that would otherwise support much more abundant and diverse
>wildlife population.

No it would not. It would either support crops or asphalt and buildings,
you poor stupid, probably extremely ignorant (that or you are even MORE
of a liar than I already know you to be) gullible fool. Of course as always
I mean only the best in pointing out how stupid this is.

>I personally think it's a good trade-off, but
>nonetheless, saying that supporting livestock farming is somehow related to
>appreciating more animals "getting to experience life" is specious, at best.
>Your argument is specious on so many different levels

But you can name none of them, though I pointed out exactly where
YOUR/"ARAs" dishonest fantasy is just another lie.

>that it never ceases
>to amaze me that you carry on with it.

I just point out facts, some of which have been true for many thousands
of years. YOU/"ARAs" can't do anything to refute the truth, and I'm aware
of it most if not every time you/"they" lie, so of course I can carry on with it.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:44:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>>>Stop promoting The Logic of the Larder ****wit, it'll never work.
>>>
>>> Your imaginary talking "AR" pig is just a meaningless fantasy.
>>
>>It's not meaningless, you just don't understand it.
>
> I understand

You understand nothing.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:56:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>
>>> This will be another one you can't answer, like why we should favor only
>>> wildlife
>>> in crop fields instead of that plus wildlife and livestock in grazing
>>> areas.
>>
>>The question is why should we consider livestock and wildlife as any
>>better
>>than only wildlife? How can you say that it's important to consider that
>>livestock *exist* and "experience life" when animals will *exist* and
>>"experience life" whether we raise livestock or not?
>
> It comes down to what we're going to promote life for, as I've been
> pointing out for 6 years and YOU/"ARAs" have been objecting to the
> entire time.

You have not given vegans or anyone else any reason why they should "promote
life" for livestock rather than wildlife. This whole "promote life"
argument has been a collossal waste of time.

>
>>> And of
>>> course you also can't explain why we should disregard the lives of
>>> livestock
>>> which are of positive value,
>>
>>What do mean by "disregard the lives"? Don't think about them? Why should
>>we?
>
> Out of consideration for the animals, but you can't understand that. If
> you can't understand, you can't understand. How could you understand,
> if you can't understand? How????

Are telling me that you love livestock so much that would rather see them
"experience life" than animals in the wild"?

>>> but how could you discuss ANY details about that
>>> when you can't even comprehend what it means? LOL...obviously you can't.
>>
>>If you don't explain clearly what it means how can I comprehend it?
>
> If you had the ability to understand you wouldn't need anyone to
> explain
> it. I didn't. But you don't have the ability to understand, so you can't
> understand.

Why, because you have a romantic attachment to them? You could still ****
chickens even if they were no longer raised as food. You could use fighting
stock, except they might bite off your tiny little dick.

>>Taking
>>your previous arguments as evidence I assume that it means that we want us
>>to think about the livestock that "enjoyed the experience"
>
> Right.
>
>>then as a result
>>feel satisfaction that we have done a good thing by consuming body parts.
>
> We have contributed to more such lives in the future. Whether or not
> you feel good about it is up to you. Obviously YOU/"ARAs" can not feel
> good about it. I can.

You aren't entitled to feel good about it. Consuming animal products does
not promote more animals or better lives for animals in general.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>>products. I'm asking you why.
>
> Because life has a positive value for some of them.

That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?

The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a negative
value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
the ones who have a positive value.

> Remember..?

I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
about them".

>
>>>>If pasture and grain fields used
>>>>to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
>>>>animal species would rebound.
>>>
>>> Like what, and why should we support them over livestock?
>>>
>>>>The list is too long to even start.
>>>
>>> You just don't have a clue, which is why you are unable to
>>> even start.
>>
>>Don't you know what kinds of animals live in plains, bush and forested
>>environments?
>
> I don't know which particular kinds of animals YOU/"ARAs" would
> like to see in place of livestock, so of course I don't know why
> you/'they"
> would rather see those particular animals in place of livestock, and of
> course don't know why everyone else would or why you/"they" do.

They want the land to be habitat for all native animals, not livestock,
because they object to the exploitation of animals.

I don't object to the exploitation of animals therefore I want livestock and
wildlife to share the resource.

What you want is some weird existential bullshit about raising livestock and
thinking about their "life experience" as a form of gratification or
rationalization or something. It's nonsense.

[..]

>>All of the ones I mentioned, and many more, in much larger numbers. And
>>there are plenty are reaons to want a diversity of animals to exist in the
>>wild.
>
> Pleanty of them live in grazing areas already with grazing animals. I'm
> convinced they do better in them than in your so beloved crop fields too.

Crop fields service livestock more than they service humans directly.

>>The question is, why should we think about animal raised in captivity
>>as you do and not consider that they exist onlt at the expense of many
>>more
>>wild animals?
>
> We should consider it all.

When it comes to livestock *or* wildlife competing for the same resource,
it's one or the other. You can't explain rationally why anyone should choose
to promote the "lives" of livestock over the "lives" of wildlife.

[..]

>>So what? There would be a change, whoopee shit. Different animals would
>>exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?
>
> That's what I keep asking you.

No it's not.

> Why should we promote life for which
> wild animals instead of livestock, as YOU/"ARAs" pretend that people
> might actually do???

Why not?

>Who are you trying to convince me might do that
> with their land, btw?

Pasture lands aren't good for much else. Letting land go to nature is the
easiest use of it.

>
>>>>I am merely pointing out that it
>>>>would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life"
>>>
>>> I disbelieve that stupid shit, which is coming from someone who
>>> so far appears to have absolutely no clue what he's trying to talk
>>> about (that's you).
>>
>>I don't care what you claim to disbelieve, make a valid argument against
>>it.
>
> I have seen a number of examples where grazing land got used for
> something else, and it has NEVER provided life for more wild animals.
> Instead it has ALWAYS provided for much much fewer wild animals,
> so of course I must believe you're just lying again.

That's because the land was near a suburb or highway and was expropriated
for another use. All existing pasture lands can't be used this way.

>>>>as you
>>>>falsely argue.
>>>
>>> Then explain what makes you think that we would just let land
>>> sit around not being used for anything other than to allow wildlife
>>> to live there.
>>
>>What's wrong with land being left alone? It's good for it, and for
>>biodiversity. We only need so many malls and condos.
>>
>>> Explain how YOU/"ARAs" would get all the people
>>> who are making money raising farm animals, to allow their land
>>> to sit and do nothing just so these imaginary wild animals you're
>>> fantasising about but are unable to describe can live there without
>>> the livestock being there also.
>>
>>I wouldn't "get them" to do anything. It's their land they can do what
>>they
>>like with it.
>
> Then they will use it to make money with, not just let it sit there
> so wild animals can live on it as YOU/"ARAs" dishonestly,
> childishly attempt to get people to stupidly believe that it would!

Like what? What good is 100,000 acres in rural Alberta except as wildlife
habitat or pasture?

[..]

>>You ignore the fact that livestock occupy land and consume food and water
>>resources that would otherwise support much more abundant and diverse
>>wildlife population.
>
> No it would not. It would either support crops or asphalt and
> buildings,

ROTFL! Let's blacktop the Western Prairies. What a moron.

>>I personally think it's a good trade-off, but
>>nonetheless, saying that supporting livestock farming is somehow related
>>to
>>appreciating more animals "getting to experience life" is specious, at
>>best.
>>Your argument is specious on so many different levels
>
> But you can name none of them,

Mice, rats, voles, groundhog, deer, beaver, moose, elk, the list could go on
for pages...

You're an idiot.

>
>>that it never ceases
>>to amaze me that you carry on with it.
>
> I just point out facts <snip>

YOU/"The ****wit" ignore the facts you don't like. You have had your stupid
little game game taken apart so many times, in so many ways it defies
counting.

dh@. lied:
> On 23 Nov 2005 09:34:54 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>>On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>
>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>
>>Because they cannot be compared.
>
>
> You did compare them

I didn't. You pretended to know that "decent lives" is
superior to "no life at all", and I told you -
correctly - that it is not, because such a comparison
is absurd.

dh@. lied:

> On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>> How have you?
>>
>>LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
>>jollies by pretending you haven't.
>>
>>In any case, it is irrelevant *how* I have done it; the relevant fact
>>is that I have, and you haven't. All you've offered in over six years
>>of ****ing away time is the same stale, illogical absurdity about the
>>goodness of causing animals to "experience life", as if that were some
>>kind of "benefit" to them. It isn't.
>
>
> Explain one.

You've seen them before. Waste your own time if you
like; not mine.

dh@. lied:

> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:17:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied
>>
>>>>It doesn't
>>>>cause MORE animals to be born,
>>>
>>> I disbelieve you.
>>
>>You have no logical basis to disbelieve it. An acre of land supports many
>>more animals and a more diverse variety if it's left alone than if we
>>intrude on it constantly with poison and machinery, or kill off many other
>>species so one can use the resource. The fact that cattle are large and many
>>of the wild species are very small is strong evidence that MANY MORE animals
>>would replace the few livestock that use the land.
>
>
> I believe that livestock have better lives than most very small wild animals,

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to them,
at all.

dh@. lied:

> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>
>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>
>>Because he is much more intelligent than you.
>
>
> IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is the
> wrong in killing things?

Your question bears no relation to your conditional
statement.

What may or may not be wrong in killing things has
nothing to do with any moral evaluation of "no life at
all" (ugh).

dh@. lied:

> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:44:42 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied
>>
>>>The fool continues to wonder:
>>
>>Indeed...
>>
>>
>>>>>>And then?
>>>>
>>>>> Then you can't understand, because you somehow have unlearned
>>>>>about life sometimes having a positive value to the animal(s). So you're
>>>>>stuck right there, unable to continue, unable to learn more, unable to
>>>>>even comprehend anything regarding positive value TO THE ANIMALS.
>>>
>>>>Stop promoting The Logic of the Larder ****wit, it'll never work.
>>>
>>> Your imaginary talking "AR" pig is just a meaningless fantasy.
>>
>>It's not meaningless, you just don't understand it.
>
>
> I understand considering the fact that live has positive value to
> some farm animals is NOT sophistry,

It is. Life per se has NO VALUE to any farm animals.
The animals who live do not consider themselves "better
off" for the experience; "getting to experience life"
doe NOT make any animals better off than if they didn't
live.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:41:00 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>
>> On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>> How have you?
>>>
>>>LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
>>>jollies by pretending you haven't.
>
>> Explain one.
>
>You've seen them before.

I want to see them "again". PLEASE present your opposition(s) to "AR",
but only if you have any. If you don't present any, I will understand that you
have none.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>
>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>
>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>
>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a negative
>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>the ones who have a positive value.
>
>> Remember..?
>
>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>about them".

You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly can
think of no reason why you should "think about them".

>[..]
>
>>>So what? There would be a change, whoopee shit. Different animals would
>>>exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?
>>
>> That's what I keep asking you.
>
>No it's not.

Yes it is. You just can't answer it. I'll ask again: WHICH particular potential
wild animals do YOU/"ARAs" believe we should provide life for INSTEAD OF
livestock, and WHY? WHICH??? WHY????????

>> Why should we promote life for which
>> wild animals instead of livestock, as YOU/"ARAs" pretend that people
>> might actually do???
>
>Why not?

Because as far as WE know--we being YOU/"ARAs" and me--there is
no reason why we should change. Back to my question again/STILL:
WHICH particular potential wild animals...and WHY?

> >Who are you trying to convince me might do that
>> with their land, btw?
>
>Pasture lands aren't good for much else.

LOL! I believe you're lying, but I would certainly LOVE to see you explain
to a farmer that his pastures aren't good for much, so he should get rid of
his cattle and just let the mice have it...LOL!!! YOU/"ARAs" are idiots!

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 06:00:21 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>>On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>>
>>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>>
>>>Because he is much more intelligent than you.
>>
>>
>> IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is the
>> wrong in killing things?
>
>Your question bears no relation to your conditional
>statement.
>
>What may or may not be wrong in killing things

What exactly may be wrong in it?

>has
>nothing to do with any moral evaluation of "no life at
>all" (ugh).

After we kill something as far as we know it has no
life at all Goo. It is just back to where it was before it
ever existed.

dh@. lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:41:00 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>>On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How have you?
>>>>
>>>>LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
>>>>jollies by pretending you haven't.
>>
>>> Explain one.
>>
>>You've seen them before.
>
>
> I want to see them "again".

Then you're going to have to spend some time in Google.
You don't get to waste my time except on my terms.

You've seen them, and WE KNOW you've seen them.

dh@. lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>
>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>
>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>
>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a negative
>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>>the ones who have a positive value.
>>
>>
>>>Remember..?
>>
>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>>about them".
>
>
> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals

Dutch is not an "ara", which you know.

YOU are the selfish one. You don't think about the
conditions the animals live in AT ALL. That's just
your smokescreen. ALLLLLLLL you care about, ****WIT,
is causing the animals to live, period.

Stop *LYING*, ****wit. Your lying is immoral.

dh@. lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 06:00:21 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>>>
>>>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>>>
>>>>Because he is much more intelligent than you.
>>>
>>>
>>> IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is the
>>>wrong in killing things?
>>
>>Your question bears no relation to your conditional
>>statement.
>>
>>What may or may not be wrong in killing things
>
>
> What exactly may be wrong in it?

Ask the "vegans" themselves, ****wit.



>>
>>has nothing to do with any moral evaluation of "no life at
>>all" (ugh).
>
>
> After we kill something as far as we know it has no
> life at all

****wit, that's not the "no life" you're talking about,
and we all know it. Stop trying to appear even more
stupid than you already are; the real ****wit is plenty
stupid enough.

****wit (David Harrison) lied:

> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit (David Harrison) lied
>>
>>>On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:13:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit (David Harrison) lied
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit (David Harrison) lied
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>****wit (David Harrison) lied
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Jay Santos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>****wit (David Harrison) lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to
>>>>>>>>>>>raise
>>>>>>>>>>>them for
>>>>>>>>>>>food,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And "vegans" believe it is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what
>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>say,
>>>>>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue
>>>>>>>pointing
>>>>>>>out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>>>>>>about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>>>>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>if
>>>>>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the
>>>>>>same
>>>>>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>>>>>livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
>>>>>animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) pigs
>>>>>
>>>>>2) chickens
>>>>>
>>>>>3) turkeys
>>>>>
>>>>>4) sheep
>>>>>
>>>>>5) cattle
>>>>
>>>>Why do you need to think about any at all?
>>>
>>> Because YOU brought it up you moron. I know that just because
>>>you brought it up doesn't mean you have any clue what you're trying
>>>to talk about, so this is to confirm that you don't, AGAIN.
>>
>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
>>products. I'm asking you why.
>
>
> Because life has a positive value for some of them.

"Getting to experience life" has NO value for *any* of
them.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:41:00 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>> On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How have you?
>>>>
>>>>LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
>>>>jollies by pretending you haven't.
>>
>>> Explain one.
>>
>>You've seen them before.
>
> I want to see them "again". PLEASE present your opposition(s) to "AR",
> but only if you have any. If you don't present any, I will understand that
> you
> have none.

ROTFL!!

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need
>>>>to
>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume
>>>>animal
>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>
>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>
>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>
>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a
>>negative
>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>>the ones who have a positive value.

NO RESPONSE

>>> Remember..?
>>
>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>>about them".
>
> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly can
> think of no reason why you should "think about them".

****wit dictionary:
Consider: v: Think about how animals get to experience life because you like
eating meat.

aka: The Logic of the Larder

>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>So what? There would be a change, whoopee shit. Different animals would
>>>>exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?
>>>
>>> That's what I keep asking you.
>>
>>No it's not.
>
> Yes it is. You just can't answer it. I'll ask again: WHICH particular
> potential
> wild animals do YOU/"ARAs" believe we should provide life for INSTEAD OF
> livestock, and WHY? WHICH??? WHY????????

Stupid, irrelevant question.

>>> Why should we promote life for which
>>> wild animals instead of livestock, as YOU/"ARAs" pretend that people
>>> might actually do???
>>
>>Why not?
>
> Because as far as WE know--we being YOU/"ARAs" and me--there is
> no reason why we should change. Back to my question again/STILL:
> WHICH particular potential wild animals...and WHY?

Stupid, irrelevant question.

>
>> >Who are you trying to convince me might do that
>>> with their land, btw?
>>
>>Pasture lands aren't good for much else.
>
> LOL! I believe you're lying, but I would certainly LOVE to see you
> explain
> to a farmer that his pastures aren't good for much, so he should get rid
> of
> his cattle and just let the mice have it...LOL!!! YOU/"ARAs" are idiots!

Stupid, irrelevant comment.

dh@. lied:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:56:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> lied
>
> >> This will be another one you can't answer, like why we should favor only
> >> wildlife
> >> in crop fields instead of that plus wildlife and livestock in grazing
> >> areas.
> >
> >The question is why should we consider livestock and wildlife as any better
> >than only wildlife? How can you say that it's important to consider that
> >livestock *exist* and "experience life" when animals will *exist* and
> >"experience life" whether we raise livestock or not?
>
> It comes down to what we're going to promote life for, as I've been
> pointing out for 6 years and YOU/"ARAs" have been objecting to the
> entire time.

That doesn't answer the question, ****wit. He asked you: why are you
focusing on livestock? Animals will live whether we breed and raise
livestock or not. Why is it *important* to you for people to want
livestock to exist? Answer the question, ****wit. Don't try to dodge
it this time; you can't do it, anyway.


>
> >> And of
> >> course you also can't explain why we should disregard the lives of livestock
> >> which are of positive value,
> >
> >What do mean by "disregard the lives"? Don't think about them? Why should
> >we?
>
> Out of consideration for the animals,

One *only* needs to have consideration for them IF they exist, ****wit.
Apart from using them for our own purposes, there is no reason to WANT
them to exist.

WHY do you want livestock to exist, ****wit, apart from your wish to
use them? Why do you want others to want them to exist? What ****ing
business is it of yours?


> >> but how could you discuss ANY details about that
> >> when you can't even comprehend what it means? LOL...obviously you can't.
> >
> >If you don't explain clearly what it means how can I comprehend it?
>
> If you had the ability to understand

He has all the ability needed to understand any thought you might have,
****wit. It's your goddamned inability to express a coherent thought
that is causing all the difficulty.


> >Taking your previous arguments as evidence I assume that it means that we want us
> >to think about the livestock that "enjoyed the experience"
>
> Right.

There is no reason to want them to exist in the first place, ****wit,
apart from satisfying our material wants. The animals get NOTHING out
of existing -per se-.



>
> >then as a result
> >feel satisfaction that we have done a good thing by consuming body parts.
>
> We have contributed to more such lives in the future. Whether or not
> you feel good about it is up to you.

There is no good reason to feel good about it, ****wit. You might feel
good about improving the quality of an animal's life, but not about
causing it to live in the first place. Causing it to live in the first
place isn't doing it a good deed.


> >I
> >am not going to indulge in that kind of thinking because it's sophistry
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Main Entry: soph·ist·ry
> Pronunciation: 'sä-f&-strE
> Function: noun
> 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> You lied.

He didn't. You are engaging in really shitty sophistry by trying to
trick people into wanting animals to live, using the smokescreen of
"decent lives".

It was clearly established long ago, ****wit, that you don't care in
the least about "decent lives"; ALL you care about is causing the
animals to live in the first place, irrespective of quality of life.


> >and I see no point to it.
>
> That's because you are not capable of understanding that life can have
> positive value to the animals,

Life -per se- has NO value to any animals, ****wit. It is *quality* of
life, given that an animal lives, that is important; that's all.

dh@. lied:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
> >> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
> >
> >Agreed, for once.
>
> It has yet to be explained how though,

No, it has been explained countless times just how you are a dumbass.
There are literally dozens of ways in which you're a dumbass, ****wit.

On 29 Nov 2005 17:59:06 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:56:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><dh@.> lied
>>
>> >> This will be another one you can't answer, like why we should favor only
>> >> wildlife
>> >> in crop fields instead of that plus wildlife and livestock in grazing
>> >> areas.
>> >
>> >The question is why should we consider livestock and wildlife as any better
>> >than only wildlife? How can you say that it's important to consider that
>> >livestock *exist* and "experience life" when animals will *exist* and
>> >"experience life" whether we raise livestock or not?
>>
>> It comes down to what we're going to promote life for, as I've been
>> pointing out for 6 years and YOU/"ARAs" have been objecting to the
>> entire time.
>
>That doesn't answer the question, ****wit. He asked you: why are you
>focusing on livestock? Animals will live whether we breed and raise
>livestock or not. Why is it *important* to you for people to want
>livestock to exist?

It is important to me that people give their lives as much or more consideration
than their deaths, and as much or more consideration than the lives of wildlife.
So Goo, what type(s) of potential wildlife do you think we should think about
when we consider the potential wildlife that livestock are preventing from living?
Why should we care about "them"?

>Answer the question, ****wit. Don't try to dodge
>it this time; you can't do it, anyway.
>
>
>>
>> >> And of
>> >> course you also can't explain why we should disregard the lives of livestock
>> >> which are of positive value,
>> >
>> >What do mean by "disregard the lives"? Don't think about them? Why should
>> >we?
>>
>> Out of consideration for the animals,
>
>One *only* needs to have consideration for them IF they exist, ****wit.

No Goo. You have already let people know that we should try to have
influence on the futu
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700

"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> Apart from using them for our own purposes, there is no reason to WANT
>them to exist.

YOU/"ARAs" are saying there is harm in raising them for food:

"people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the animals
somehow mitigates the harm."

So you/"they" are promoting what you/"they" believe would be the
best change:

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it."

>WHY do you want livestock to exist, ****wit, apart from your wish to
>use them? Why do you want others to want them to exist? What ****ing
>business is it of yours?

What you want to know is why do I point out that YOU/"ARAs" are lying
when you say veganism helps animals. I point it out in case anyone reading
ever actually wants to contribute to decent lives for livestock Goo...which
is something YOU/"ARAs" can not understand.

>> >> but how could you discuss ANY details about that
>> >> when you can't even comprehend what it means? LOL...obviously you can't.
>> >
>> >If you don't explain clearly what it means how can I comprehend it?
>>
>> If you had the ability to understand
>
>He has all the ability needed to understand any thought you might have,
>****wit. It's your goddamned inability to express a coherent thought
>that is causing all the difficulty.

Explain how quality of life could give life a positive value. You can't
do it, because you can't understand how it could. Neither can your boy
Dutch.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:05:09 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 06:00:21 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because he is much more intelligent than you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is the
>>>>wrong in killing things?
>>>
>>>Your question bears no relation to your conditional
>>>statement.
>>>
>>>What may or may not be wrong in killing things
>>
>>
>> What exactly may be wrong in it?
>
>Ask the "vegans"

Why did you mention any possible wrong in it, if you have no
idea what the wrong might be Goo? Why should I believe there
is a wrong involved? If you can't tell me then there is no wrong
to consider, but only their lives left to think about.

>themselves, ****wit.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>has nothing to do with any moral evaluation of "no life at
>>>all" (ugh).
>>
>>
>> After we kill something as far as we know it has no
>> life at all
>
>****wit, that's not the "no life" you're talking about,
>and we all know it.

How many no lifes are there Goo?

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:55:49 GMT, Goo wrote:

Goo agreed:

>WE KNOW

We KNOW "they" don't exist.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:25:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need
>>>>>to
>>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume
>>>>>animal
>>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>>
>>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>>
>>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>>
>>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a
>>>negative
>>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>>>the ones who have a positive value.
>
>NO RESPONSE

We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.

>>>> Remember..?
>>>
>>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>>>about them".
>>
>> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly can
>> think of no reason why you should "think about them".
>
>****wit dictionary:
>Consider: v: Think about because you like
>eating meat.

Explain why it matters to the animals "how animals get to experience life".

>aka: The Logic of the Larder

You just can't answer it. I'll ask again: WHICH particular potential
wild animals do YOU/"ARAs" believe we should provide life for INSTEAD OF
livestock, and WHY? WHICH??? WHY????????

On 29 Nov 2005 18:00:47 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. lied:
>> >> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>> >
>> >Agreed, for once.
>>
>> It has yet to be explained how though,
>
>No, it has been explained countless times

Provide some example(s).

dh@. lied:

> On 29 Nov 2005 17:59:06 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:56:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> lied
>>>
>>>>>This will be another one you can't answer, like why we should favor only
>>>>>wildlife
>>>>>in crop fields instead of that plus wildlife and livestock in grazing
>>>>>areas.
>>>>
>>>>The question is why should we consider livestock and wildlife as any better
>>>>than only wildlife? How can you say that it's important to consider that
>>>>livestock *exist* and "experience life" when animals will *exist* and
>>>>"experience life" whether we raise livestock or not?
>>>
>>> It comes down to what we're going to promote life for, as I've been
>>>pointing out for 6 years and YOU/"ARAs" have been objecting to the
>>>entire time.
>>
>>That doesn't answer the question, ****wit. He asked you: why are you
>>focusing on livestock? Animals will live whether we breed and raise
>>livestock or not. Why is it *important* to you for people to want
>>livestock to exist?
>
>
> It is important to me that people give their lives as much or more consideration
> than their deaths

WHY, ****wit? You still aren't answering the question:
WHY do you care that people give *livestock* any
consideration at all? You need to explain that, but
you're dodging it.


> and as much or more consideration than the lives of wildlife.

WHY, ****wit?


> what type(s) of potential wildlife do you think we should think about
> when we consider the potential wildlife that livestock are preventing from living?

****wit, I haven't said a thing about "considering" the
lives of wildlife instead of livestock. YOU are the
one who desperately, frantically insisting that people
"consider" the lives of livestock, but you STILL
haven't said why they should.

Why should livestock exist at all, ****wit? WHY?
Answer the question.


>>Answer the question, ****wit. Don't try to dodge
>>it this time; you can't do it, anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>And of
>>>>>course you also can't explain why we should disregard the lives of livestock
>>>>>which are of positive value,
>>>>
>>>>What do mean by "disregard the lives"? Don't think about them? Why should
>>>>we?
>>>
>>> Out of consideration for the animals,
>>
>>One *only* needs to have consideration for them IF they exist, ****wit.
>
>
> No. You have already let people know that we should try to have
> influence on the future

ONLY if they exist, ****wit.


>>Apart from using them for our own purposes, there is no reason to WANT
>>them to exist.
>
>
> YOU/"ARAs" are saying there is harm in raising them for food:

I don't say that, ****wit, and you know it. I'm not an
"ara".

You have no reason to want them to exist, other than
YOUR use of them.

>
>>WHY do you want livestock to exist, ****wit, apart from your wish to
>>use them? Why do you want others to want them to exist? What ****ing
>>business is it of yours?
>
>
> What you want to know is why do I point out that

No, ****wit. I want to know WHY you think it's
important for livestock to exist for any reason other
than our use of them.


>>>>>but how could you discuss ANY details about that
>>>>>when you can't even comprehend what it means? LOL...obviously you can't.
>>>>
>>>>If you don't explain clearly what it means how can I comprehend it?
>>>
>>> If you had the ability to understand
>>
>>He has all the ability needed to understand any thought you might have,
>>****wit. It's your goddamned inability to express a coherent thought
>>that is causing all the difficulty.
>
>
> Explain how quality of life could give life a positive value.

That's among the most ****witted things you've ever
said, ****wit, out of millions. Quality of life is THE
ONLY thing that gives life a positive value.

Answer the questions, ****wit, because they're not
going away:

WHY do you consider it important in particular to want
livestock to live, other than to provide products for you?

WHY do you insist that others feel the same way?

dh@. lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:05:09 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 06:00:21 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because he is much more intelligent than you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is the
>>>>>wrong in killing things?
>>>>
>>>>Your question bears no relation to your conditional
>>>>statement.
>>>>
>>>>What may or may not be wrong in killing things
>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly may be wrong in it?
>>
>>Ask the "vegans"
>
>
> Why did you mention any possible wrong in it

Stop asking me questions that you really ought to be
asking the "vegans", ****wit. Why are you incapable of
asking "vegans" questions that they might answer,
****wit? Are you afraid of them?


>>themselves, ****wit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>has nothing to do with any moral evaluation of "no life at
>>>>all" (ugh).
>>>
>>>
>>> After we kill something as far as we know it has no
>>>life at all
>>
>>****wit, that's not the "no life" you're talking about,
>>and we all know it.
>
>
> How many

Waste your own time, ****wit.

****wit David Harrison, 46-year-old homo who just moved
out of his mom's house, lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:55:49 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>
>>> I want to see them "again".
>>
>> Then you're going to have to spend some time in Google.
>> You don't get to waste my time except on my terms.
>>
>> You've seen them, and WE KNOW you've seen them.
>
>
> We KNOW "they" don't exist.

You know they DO exist, ****wit. Go find them.

****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:25:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> lied
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume
>>>>>>animal
>>>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>>>
>>>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a
>>>>negative
>>>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking about
>>>>the ones who have a positive value.
>>
>>NO RESPONSE
>
>
> We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
> the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs"

Dutch doesn't want to eliminate livestock, ****wit.
You know it, too. Stop lying.

WHY do you think it's important that livestock in
particular exist, ****wit? Answer the question.



>>>>>Remember..?
>>>>
>>>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should "think
>>>>about them".
>>>
>>> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly can
>>>think of no reason why you should "think about them".
>>
>>****wit dictionary:
>>Consider: v: Think about because you like
>>eating meat.
>
>
> Explain why it matters to the animals "how animals get to experience life".

Explain why it matters to livestock animals that they
exist, ****wit.


>
>
>>aka: The Logic of the Larder
>
>
> You just can't answer it.

It isn't a sensible question.

Dutch's question to you is eminently reasonable: WHY
do you think it's important that livestock exist?

dh@. lied

> On 29 Nov 2005 18:00:47 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>>>>
>>>>Agreed, for once.
>>>
>>> It has yet to be explained how though,
>>
>>No, it has been explained countless times
>
>
> Provide some example(s).

Go look them up yourself, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:25:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:28:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:19:24 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we
>>>>>>need
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume
>>>>>>animal
>>>>>>products. I'm asking you why.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because life has a positive value for some of them.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't answer the question, why think about *them*?
>>>>
>>>>The animals we need to think about are the ones who's lives have a
>>>>negative
>>>>value so we can eliminate those stiuations. There no point thinking
>>>>about
>>>>the ones who have a positive value.
>>
>>NO RESPONSE
>
> We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
> the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.

Why do we need to think about animals who are well treated? How does
thinking about them help them? How does it help you? The answers are all
negative. It's completely meaningless to spend any time thinking about
animals who are well treated.

>>>>> Remember..?
>>>>
>>>>I remember, it doesn't provide a rational explanation why we should
>>>>"think
>>>>about them".
>>>
>>> You "ARAs" are too selfish to consider the animals, and admittedly
>>> can
>>> think of no reason why you should "think about them".
>>
>>****wit dictionary:
>>Consider: v: Think about because you like
>>eating meat.

Why did you snip the middle of that quote?

****wit dictionary:
Consider: v: Think about how animals get to experience life because you like
eating meat.>

> Explain why it matters to the animals "how animals get to experience
> life".

It doesn't matter to the animals at all that you think about them "getting
to experience life". They don't know you do it, and it doesn't change their
lives. All it does is provide you with some relief for the sick guilt that
you don't even know you have.

>>aka: The Logic of the Larder
>
> You just can't answer it. I'll ask again: WHICH particular potential
> wild animals do YOU/"ARAs" believe we should provide life for INSTEAD OF
> livestock, and WHY? WHICH??? WHY????????

We should raise the animals we need and want, no more, no less. We should do
it because we want to and have the right to do so. We should treat whatever
animals we raise with decency. If we raise fewer, then fewer livestock will
exist to displace wildlife and leave more resources and space for whatever
wildlife are indigenous to those areas. Wildlife populations always swell to
meet the resources available to support them. That's the whole story in a
nutshell ****wit, all your talk about "life providing" is a crock of shit.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. lied
>
>> On 29 Nov 2005 18:00:47 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. lied:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed, for once.
>>>>
>>>> It has yet to be explained how though,
>>>
>>>No, it has been explained countless times
>>
>>
>> Provide some example(s).
>
>Go look them up yourself, ****wit.

They do not exist Goo, which of course is why you
can provide NO example(s).

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Goo wrote:

>>>Mr Harrison told the Gonad:
>>>>
>>>> I want to see them "again".
>>>
>>> Then you're going to have to spend some time in Google.
>>> You don't get to waste my time except on my terms.
>>>
>>> You've seen them, and WE KNOW you've seen them.
>>
>>
>> We KNOW "they" don't exist.
>
>You know they DO exist, ****wit. Go find them.

I found these quotes of YOURS which explain exactly how
YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to think about raising animals
for food:

"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
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."

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:44:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>> We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
>> the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.
>
>Why do we need to think about animals who are well treated?

We should consider all of them, NOT ONLY the ones which support
the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.

>How does
>thinking about them help them? How does it help you? The answers are all
>negative. It's completely meaningless to spend any time thinking about
>animals who are well treated.

Not for people who like thinking about animals who are well treated,
which YOU/"ARAs" obviously do NOT.

[...]
>talk about "life providing"

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life."

>is a crock of shit.

Well, I have pointed out that you're a sack of shit.

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Rudy Canoza explicated:
>
> >>>****wit David Harrison lied:
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to see them "again".
> >>>
> >>> Then you're going to have to spend some time in Google.
> >>> You don't get to waste my time except on my terms.
> >>>
> >>> You've seen them, and WE KNOW you've seen them.
> >>
> >>
> >> We KNOW "they" don't exist.
> >
> >You know they DO exist, ****wit. Go find them.
>
> I found these quotes of YOURS which explain exactly how
> YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to think about raising animals
> for food:

They don't show any such thing, ****wit.

Go find my posts in reply to Karen Winter, Michael Cerkowski, Sophist
Bob Black, and others.

**** away your own time, ****wit.

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >
> >> On 29 Nov 2005 18:00:47 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrison lied:
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrison inexplicably told the truth:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Agreed, for once.
> >>>>
> >>>> It has yet to be explained how though,
> >>>
> >>>No, it has been explained countless times
> >>
> >>
> >> Provide some example(s).
> >
> >Go look them up yourself, ****wit.
>
> They do not exist

They do exist, ****wit. Stop lying. Go find them yourself. You saw
them the first time, and you know they're out there.

**** away your own time, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>>dh@. lied
>>
>>> On 29 Nov 2005 18:00:47 -0800, "Leif Erikson" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Agreed, for once.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has yet to be explained how though,
>>>>
>>>>No, it has been explained countless times
>>>
>>>
>>> Provide some example(s).
>>
>>Go look them up yourself, ****wit.
>
> They do not exist

Of course not.. wildlife is all just a big conspiracy to prevent you from
being appreciated for causing animals to experience life..

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:44:40 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>>> We should think about all conditions, NOT ONLY the ones which support
>>> the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.
>>
>>Why do we need to think about animals who are well treated?
>
> We should consider all of them, NOT ONLY the ones which support
> the elimination of livestock as YOU/"ARAs" would restrict us to.

Why?

>>How does
>>thinking about them help them? How does it help you? The answers are all
>>negative. It's completely meaningless to spend any time thinking about
>>animals who are well treated.
>
> Not for people who like thinking about animals who are well treated,
> which YOU/"ARAs" obviously do NOT.

Yes, for you also, it's a completely pointless exercise.

> [...]
>>talk about "life providing"
>
> "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life."
>
>>is a crock of shit.
>
> Well, I have pointed out that you're a sack of shit.

Nobody but you stands to benefit from what I am doing.

On 1 Dec 2005, Goo bawled desperately:

>Mr Harrison pointed out:

>> I found these quotes of YOURS which explain exactly how
>> YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to think about raising animals
>> for food:
>
>They don't show any such thing, ****wit.

Which of these things that YOU wrote:

"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
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."

do YOU/"ARAs" disagree with Goober?