About Us

wrote:
> This is why it is a waste to argue with shit eating meat industry
> shills like Leif Erikson - just make them eat their dirt

Dave wrote:
> wrote:
> > This is why it is a waste to argue with shit eating meat industry
> > shills like Leif Erikson - just make them eat their dirt

wrote:

> This is why I sexually assault small children.

Oh, really.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>> Message-ID: et>
>>>>
>>>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> [...]
>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>
>> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>
>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the causing
>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the position
>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.

What "this" are you referring to?

>By
>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the situation" you
>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto yourself,
>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring to
>"some of them who benefit".

Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and which
do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the fact.

>It's a horrible mess you have created,

LOL!!! I didn't create anything you poor sap.

>and you
>just keep making it worse.

I don't make anything worse either. I just point out facts that you/"aras"
are obviously very opposed to seeing pointed out, even though you have
mistakenly/hilariously pasted a couple of them yourself. And I feel certain
that Goo stays in your ass via email for having done so, LOL...... In fact,
the paste: "It's a horrible mess you have created" is likely to be from an
email Goo sent to you, bitching you out for pasting the fact that life can
have positive value to the animal.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:45:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>
>>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
>>
>> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
>> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.
>
>Huh?

Your reply to your paste in no way prevents us from considering the
fact that you pasted. Of course as all your replies it makes me wonder
why you ever pasted the fact to begin with, since you not only can't
understand the fact but you are insanely opposed to it ever being taken
into consideration.

>>>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I
>>>point
>>>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
>>
>> No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is better
>> than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive
>> value.
>
>Why would I need to explain that?

So I can understand why you have been maniacally opposing the
suggestion that people consider deliberately contributing to decent AW
instead of becomming veg*ns, as you have been doing for years.

****wit David Harrison stupidly and wrongly thought he could waste our
time with:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrison lied::
> >>
> >>>> __________________________________________________ _______
> >>>> From: Rudy Canoza >
> >>>> Message-ID: et>
> >>>>
> >>>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
> >>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> [...]
> >>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
> >>
> >> What exactly is the wrongness Leif? Anyone?
> >
> >The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the causing
> >of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the position
> >that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>
> What "this" are you referring to?

Stop taking a shit in public, ****wit. You know what he's referring
to. Or? You're so stupid you don't? Can't you read simple English,
****wit?

> >By claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the situation"

They get NO BENEFIT out of the "situation".

> >you are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto yourself,
> >then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring to
> >"some of them who benefit".
>
> Some do. Some don't.

NO animal "benefits" from coming into existence, ****wit.

> >It's a horrible mess you have created,
>
> LOL!!! I didn't create anything

You created a horrible mess for yourself. We enjoy watching you cover
yourself in filth.

> >and you
> >just keep making it worse.
>
> I don't make anything worse either.

You keep making the mess you're in worse.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Goo wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>______________________________________________ ___________
>>>>From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>Message-ID: et>
>>>>
>>>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>
>>
>> What exactly is the wrongness
>
>Of using the (Il)Logic of the Larder to justify your
>meat eating?

No, you poor stupid Goober. What exactly is "the wrongness of their
deaths" that you always insist giving them life does NOT mitigate the
wrongness of? Goo? Ingrid? Anyone? Since Goo obviously is not able
to do it, can anyone else help the poor dumb Goober explain himself?

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >
> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrison lied:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>______________________________________________ ___________
> >>>>From: Rudy Canoza >
> >>>>Message-ID: et>
> >>>>
> >>>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
> >>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
> >>
> >>
> >> What exactly is the wrongness
> >
> >Of using the (Il)Logic of the Larder to justify your
> >meat eating?
>
> No. What exactly is "the wrongness of their
> deaths" that you always insist giving them life does NOT mitigate the
> wrongness of?

Ask an "ara", ****wit.

But ask yourself too, ****wit - YOU think there's something wrong with
killing them: that's why you feel the need for mitigation.

pantywaist homo fudgepacking gutless punk ronnie hamilton forged Leifs
name and blabbered:
> Gene wrote:
> > On 15 Jan 2006 15:21:35 -0800, wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >dh@. wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >dh@. wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> __________________________________________________ _______
> > >> >> From: Rudy Canoza >
> > >> >> Message-ID: et>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
> > >> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > >> [...]
> > >> >ALL excellent and factual observations.
> > >>
> > >> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >Where's the wrongness in shooting a man dead?
> >
> >
> > When he's not even armed?
>
>
> Yep. Same as a steer, pig, or chicken in the slaughterhouse.

Stop using other posters' namse, ronnie, you chickenshit punk.

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:45:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>****wit David Harrison lied:
> >>>> On 10 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
> >>>> __________________________________________________ _______
> >>>> From: "Dutch" >
> >>>> Message-ID: >
> >>>>
> >>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> >>>> has positive or negative value to the animal.
> >>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >>>
> >>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
> >>
> >> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
> >> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.
> >
> >Huh?
>
> Your reply to your paste

Paste? You stupid ****.

> since you not only can't
> understand the fact

Not a fact.

> >>>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I
> >>>point
> >>>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
> >>
> >> No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is better
> >> than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive
> >> value.
> >
> >Why would I need to explain that?
>
> So I can understand why you have been maniacally opposing the
> suggestion that people consider deliberately contributing to decent AW

He hasn't been doing that, ****wit. He has been telling you that
*your* ****witted rationale for opposing "ar" is illogical bullshit.
He's right. I'm right. Your "getting to experience life" bullshit
doesn't merit any serious consideration.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>> Message-ID: et>
>>>>>
>>>>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>> [...]
>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>
>>> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>>
>>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the
>>causing
>>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the position
>>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>
> What "this" are you referring to?

Are you dense? I just explained it. "This" is the act of killing animals to
use them as food.

>>By
>>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the situation"
>>you
>>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto yourself,
>>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring to
>>"some of them who benefit".
>
> Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and which
> do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the fact.

It's meaningless to vaguely "point out" that some do and some don't.

>
>>It's a horrible mess you have created,
>
> LOL!!! I didn't create anything you poor sap.

Yes you have you moron, you have painted yourself into a corner with no
means of escape.

>>and you
>>just keep making it worse.
>
> I don't make anything worse either.

The longer you stick to this stupid idea the worse you look.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:45:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>
>>>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>
>>>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
>>>
>>> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
>>> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.
>>
>>Huh?
>
> Your reply to your paste in no way prevents us from considering the
> fact that you pasted.

I didn't intend it to.

> Of course as all your replies it makes me wonder
> why you ever pasted the fact to begin with, since you not only can't
> understand the fact but you are insanely opposed to it ever being taken
> into consideration.

You obviously misconstruing the statement, it refers to animals who are
living or will be born anyway. It in no way suggests that we *ought to*
raise them in order that they can be treated well. That is an absurd
bass-ackwards idea.

>>>>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I
>>>>point
>>>>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
>>>
>>> No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is
>>> better
>>> than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive
>>> value.
>>
>>Why would I need to explain that? I would never made such a statement.
Nobody with half a brain talks that way.
>
> So I can understand why you have been maniacally opposing the
> suggestion that people consider deliberately contributing to decent AW
> instead of becomming veg*ns, as you have been doing for years.

Before you can begin to understand what we're saying you must stop thinking
of the life-experiences of livestock as built-in excuses for raising them
and eating them.

This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it

gutless punk purgerer shitbag Leif Erikson wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison lied:
> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:45:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >****wit David Harrison lied:
> > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>****wit David Harrison lied:
> > >>>> On 10 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
> > >>>> __________________________________________________ _______
> > >>>> From: "Dutch" >
> > >>>> Message-ID: >
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> > >>>> has positive or negative value to the animal.
> > >>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > >>>
> > >>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
> > >>
> > >> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
> > >> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.
> > >
> > >Huh?
> >
> > Your reply to your paste
>
> Paste? You stupid ****.
>
> > since you not only can't
> > understand the fact
>
> Not a fact.
>
>
> > >>>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. NeedI
> > >>>point
> > >>>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
> > >>
> > >> No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life isbetter
> > >> than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive
> > >> value.
> > >
> > >Why would I need to explain that?
> >
> > So I can understand why you have been maniacally opposing the
> > suggestion that people consider deliberately contributing to decent AW
>
> He hasn't been doing that, ****wit. He has been telling you that
> *your* ****witted rationale for opposing "ar" is illogical bullshit.
> He's right. I'm right. Your "getting to experience life" bullshit
> doesn't merit any serious consideration.

This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it

gutless punk purgerer shitbag Leif Erikson wrote:
> pantywaist homo fudgepacking gutless punk ronnie hamilton forged Leifs
> name and blabbered:
> > Gene wrote:
> > > On 15 Jan 2006 15:21:35 -0800, wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >dh@. wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >dh@. wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >> __________________________________________________ _______
> > > >> >> From: Rudy Canoza >
> > > >> >> Message-ID: et>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
> > > >> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > > >> [...]
> > > >> >ALL excellent and factual observations.
> > > >>
> > > >> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Where's the wrongness in shooting a man dead?
> > >
> > >
> > > When he's not even armed?
> >
> >
> > Yep. Same as a steer, pig, or chicken in the slaughterhouse.
>
> Stop using other posters' namse, ronnie, you chickenshit punk.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:59:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>> Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>> [...]
>>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>>
>>>> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>>>
>>>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the
>>>causing
>>>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the position
>>>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>>
>> What "this" are you referring to?
>
>Are you dense? I just explained it. "This" is the act of killing animals to
>use them as food.

Finally! Damn, it only took 5 or 6 years for one of you to say WHAT you
think the "wrongness" is. So does that mean that we have to wait until
2112 before one of you can explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong
to kill them? Or will it be even longer for something as hard for you as
that? Or--least likely of all--can you just go ahead and explain it now?

>>>By
>>>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the situation"
>>>you
>>>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto yourself,
>>>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring to
>>>"some of them who benefit".
>>
>> Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and which
>> do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the fact.
>
>It's meaningless to vaguely "point out" that some do and some don't.

It's meaningless to you who don't understand, so of course are completely
unable to take it into consideration. I do. You can't.

>>>It's a horrible mess you have created,
>>
>> LOL!!! I didn't create anything you poor sap.
>
>Yes you have you moron, you have painted yourself into a corner with no
>means of escape.

I consider aspects of the situation that you/"aras" are opposed to seeing
considered.

>>>and you
>>>just keep making it worse.
>>
>> I don't make anything worse either.
>
>The longer you stick to this stupid idea the worse you look.

Of course I feel the same way toward you, since you have nothing
to offer but I do.

On 16 Jan 2006 18:55:16 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison lied:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> >****wit David Harrison lied:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Goo wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>______________________________________________ ___________
>> >>>>From: Goo >
>> >>>>Message-ID: et>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>> >>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What exactly is the wrongness
>> >
>> >Of using the (Il)Logic of the Larder to justify your
>> >meat eating?
>>
>> No. What exactly is "the wrongness of their
>> deaths" that you always insist giving them life does NOT mitigate the
>> wrongness of?
>
>Ask an "ara", ****wit.

I'm asking YOU because YOU wrote it Goo. And now you're
saying that you're too stupid to explain why you wrote it, or what
you think you were thinking when you did. LOL...and you wonder
why I believe you're stupid.

>But ask yourself too, ****wit - YOU think there's something wrong with
>killing them: that's why you feel the need for mitigation.

What could I think is wrong with it Goo? Unlike yourself I know
that raising them for food doesn't give them less life, so what could
I think is wrong with it?

****wit David Harrison lied, again:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:59:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied, again:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison lied, again:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied, again:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>___________________________________________ ______________
>>>>>>>From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>>>>
>>>>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the
>>>>causing
>>>>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the position
>>>>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>>>
>>> What "this" are you referring to?
>>
>>Are you dense? I just explained it. "This" is the act of killing animals to
>>use them as food.
>
>
> Finally! Damn, it only took 5 or 6 years for one of you to say WHAT you
> think the "wrongness" is.

No, ****wit, you prick-cheese liar. Dutch doesn't
think it's wrong. "vegans" think it's wrong, and YOU,
as a mutant-"vegan", *also* think it's wrong: that's
why you *need* the (Il)Logic of the Larder as mitigation.

>>>>By
>>>>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the situation"
>>>>you
>>>>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto yourself,
>>>>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring to
>>>>"some of them who benefit".
>>>
>>> Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and which
>>>do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the fact.
>>
>>It's meaningless to vaguely "point out" that some do and some don't.
>
>
> It's meaningless to you who don't understand,

We all understand that NO animal benefits from coming
into existence, ****wit. Acknowledge that *FACT*,
****wit: NO animal benefits from coming into
existence. Acknowledge it now, ****wit.

>>>>It's a horrible mess you have created,
>>>
>>> LOL!!! I didn't create anything you poor sap.
>>
>>Yes you have you moron, you have painted yourself into a corner with no
>>means of escape.
>
>
> I consider aspects of the situation that you/"aras" are opposed to seeing
> considered.

No. You consider ****witted religious superstition
that you invent. You don't consider real aspects of
any "situation".

>>>>and you
>>>>just keep making it worse.
>>>
>>> I don't make anything worse either.
>>
>>The longer you stick to this stupid idea the worse you look.
>
>
> Of course

Of course.

****wit David Harrison lied, again:

> On 16 Jan 2006 18:55:16 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Leif wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>___________________________________________ ______________
>>>>>>>From: Goo >
>>>>>>>Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is the wrongness
>>>>
>>>>Of using the (Il)Logic of the Larder to justify your
>>>>meat eating?
>>>
>>> No. What exactly is "the wrongness of their
>>>deaths" that you always insist giving them life does NOT mitigate the
>>>wrongness of?
>>
>>Ask an "ara", ****wit.
>
>
> I'm asking YOU because YOU wrote it

Ask an "ara", ****wit. They believe killing animals to
be wrong. Ask them to explain it to you.

>>But ask yourself too, ****wit - YOU think there's something wrong with
>>killing them: that's why you feel the need for mitigation.
>
>
> What could I think is wrong with it?

Good question, ****wit. ANSWER it. You CLEARLY think
*something* is wrong with it - that's why you feel the
irrational need to mitigate it.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:08:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:45:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>
>>>>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
>>>>
>>>> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
>>>> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.
>>>
>>>Huh?
>>
>> Your reply to your paste in no way prevents us from considering the
>> fact that you pasted.
>
>I didn't intend it to.

So we can agree that it was of no value, and a total waste that
would have been better to leave out. So why did you even bother?
Why did you paste a fact you disagree with in the first place? And
then why did you recently reply to your own paste that you never
understood, in the meaningless way that you did?

>> Of course as all your replies it makes me wonder
>> why you ever pasted the fact to begin with, since you not only can't
>> understand the fact but you are insanely opposed to it ever being taken
>> into consideration.
>
>You obviously misconstruing the statement, it refers to animals who are
>living or will be born anyway. It in no way suggests that we *ought to*
>raise them in order that they can be treated well. That is an absurd
>bass-ackwards idea.

It's you/"aras" who say we should make the change and STOP
raising livestock. I question why we should do so, and so far the
"best" that YOU have been able to come up with is that it might
possibly result in more mice, frogs and groundhogs. Since I still
think of all animals in the same way, I want to know WHY we
should consider making the change. LOL...it's not bass-ackwards
you poor goof, it's just trying to figure out wtf you people think you
have to offer. So far, it's still nothing better. That's not my fault.
It IS your/"their" fault. So it's up to you/"them" to change the
situation, not me...especially considering that you/"they" created
it to begin with by suggesting the change.

>>>>>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I
>>>>>point
>>>>>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
>>>>
>>>> No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is
>>>> better
>>>> than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive
>>>> value.
>>>
>>>Why would I need to explain that? I would never made such a statement.
>Nobody with half a brain talks that way.
>>
>> So I can understand why you have been maniacally opposing the
>> suggestion that people consider deliberately contributing to decent AW
>> instead of becomming veg*ns, as you have been doing for years.
>
>Before you can begin to understand what we're saying you must stop thinking
>of the life-experiences of livestock as built-in excuses for raising them
>and eating them.

It causes me to think of them in the same ways I think of all other things.
So far none of you have given me reason to think of them differently, though
I guess that's what you're trying to do. Since you're trying to get me to think
of every single one of them as being completely exploited, gaining nothing
from the arrangement, and even if they did gain something we would amusingly
be less ethical if we showed the consideration of taking lives of positive value
into our evaluation of whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them
for food, there is nothing for me to believe except that you're trying to promote
their elimination/"ar". I think of them as I do all other living things, so you need
to explain WHY TF??? I should think of them completely differently. So please
explain why.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:35:22 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh asked Goo to explain:

>>>>>>>>__________________________________________ _______________
>>>>>>>>From: Goo >
>>>>>>>>Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[...]
>> What could I think is wrong with it?
>
>Good question, ****wit. ANSWER it. You CLEARLY think
>*something* is wrong with it - that's why you feel the
>irrational need to mitigate it.

I don't know what the wrongness is Goo, so I'm asking YOU
what YOU think is the wrong which YOU insist can not be
mitigated in any way:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: . com>

having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does not
mitigate the wrong in any way.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Goo? Ingrid? Anyone?

****wit David Harrison, hick in Buford, GA, lied:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:35:22 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, hick in Buford, GA, lied:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>_________________________________________ ________________
>>>>>>>>>From: Goo >
>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> [...]
>
>>> What could I think is wrong with it?
>>
>>Good question, ****wit. ANSWER it. You CLEARLY think
>>*something* is wrong with it - that's why you feel the
>>irrational need to mitigate it.
>
>
> I don't know what the wrongness is

You MUST have some idea what it is, ****wit, or else
you wouldn't *need* the mitigation!

WHY do you feel the need to mitigate your killing of
animals, ****wit? WHY?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:59:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>> Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>>>>
>>>>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the
>>>>causing
>>>>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the
>>>>position
>>>>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>>>
>>> What "this" are you referring to?
>>
>>Are you dense? I just explained it. "This" is the act of killing animals
>>to
>>use them as food.
>
> Finally! Damn, it only took 5 or 6 years for one of you to say WHAT you
> think the "wrongness" is.

It took you THAT long to figure out what ARA/vegans consider to be wrong?
You ARE dense.

> So does that mean that we have to wait until
> 2112 before one of you can explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong
> to kill them?

No, many of them give elaborate explanations.

> Or will it be even longer for something as hard for you as
> that? Or--least likely of all--can you just go ahead and explain it now?

Why should I indulge your time-wasting questions? You can read AR/vegan
literature as well as I can.

>>>>By
>>>>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the situation"
>>>>you
>>>>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto
>>>>yourself,
>>>>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring to
>>>>"some of them who benefit".
>>>
>>> Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and
>>> which
>>> do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the fact.
>>
>>It's meaningless to vaguely "point out" that some do and some don't.
>
> It's meaningless to you who don't understand, so of course are
> completely
> unable to take it into consideration. I do. You can't.

I understand it fine, it's a vague, meaningless assertion.

>>>>It's a horrible mess you have created,
>>>
>>> LOL!!! I didn't create anything you poor sap.
>>
>>Yes you have you moron, you have painted yourself into a corner with no
>>means of escape.
>
> I consider aspects of the situation that you/"aras" are opposed to
> seeing
> considered.

No you don't. You attribute moral significance to the lives of livestock in
a completely unsupportable way.

>>>>and you
>>>>just keep making it worse.
>>>
>>> I don't make anything worse either.
>>
>>The longer you stick to this stupid idea the worse you look.
>
> Of course I feel the same way toward you, since you have nothing
> to offer but I do.

You are offering sophistry, self-serving circular logic.

I love eating meat, therefore I buy it, therefore people raise livestock,
therefore livestock get to experience life, therefore my love of eating meat
amounts to a moral act. It's a mess.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:08:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:45:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:0oaas151hgiqg4so9jdrudtq7ps5kt0kp6@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
>>>>>
>>>>> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
>>>>> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.
>>>>
>>>>Huh?
>>>
>>> Your reply to your paste in no way prevents us from considering the
>>> fact that you pasted.
>>
>>I didn't intend it to.
>
> So we can agree that it was of no value, and a total waste that
> would have been better to leave out.

No, we don't.

> So why did you even bother?

Because it's true.

> Why did you paste a fact you disagree with in the first place?

I don't disagree with it, I disagree with your false interperation of it.

> And
> then why did you recently reply to your own paste that you never
> understood, in the meaningless way that you did?

Non sequitor.

>>> Of course as all your replies it makes me wonder
>>> why you ever pasted the fact to begin with, since you not only can't
>>> understand the fact but you are insanely opposed to it ever being taken
>>> into consideration.
>>
>>You obviously misconstruing the statement, it refers to animals who are
>>living or will be born anyway. It in no way suggests that we *ought to*
>>raise them in order that they can be treated well. That is an absurd
>>bass-ackwards idea.
>
> It's you/"aras" who say we should make the change and STOP
> raising livestock.

They say it, not I.

> I question why we should do so,

Good question, ask one of them.

> and so far the
> "best" that YOU have been able to come up with is that it might
> possibly result in more mice, frogs and groundhogs.

That's a refutation of YOUR argument that raising livestock results in more
animals experiencing life, not a refuation of the AR elimination goal.

> Since I still
> think of all animals in the same way,

You're lying, your argument assumes, for no rational reason, that it is
morally better to raise livestock than to allow resources to support
wildlife.

> I want to know WHY we
> should consider making the change.

Ask an ARA, they have plenty of arguments.

> LOL...it's not bass-ackwards
> you poor goof, it's just trying to figure out wtf you people think you
> have to offer. So far, it's still nothing better. That's not my fault.
> It IS your/"their" fault. So it's up to you/"them" to change the
> situation, not me...especially considering that you/"they" created
> it to begin with by suggesting the change.

Then leave it to them to provide the convincing arguments instead of setting
up this bogus strawman about animals getting to experience life. I guarantee
that their arguments will fall apart when examined, *without* resorting to
the logic of the larder.

>>>>>>Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I
>>>>>>point
>>>>>>out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. You need to explain why we should feel that "AR"=no life is
>>>>> better
>>>>> than decent AW=deliberately providing animals with lives of positive
>>>>> value.
>>>>
>>>>Why would I need to explain that? I would never made such a statement.
>>Nobody with half a brain talks that way.
>>>
>>> So I can understand why you have been maniacally opposing the
>>> suggestion that people consider deliberately contributing to decent AW
>>> instead of becomming veg*ns, as you have been doing for years.
>>
>>Before you can begin to understand what we're saying you must stop
>>thinking
>>of the life-experiences of livestock as built-in excuses for raising them
>>and eating them.
>
> It causes me to think of them in the same ways I think of all other
> things.
> So far none of you have given me reason to think of them differently,
> though
> I guess that's what you're trying to do. Since you're trying to get me to
> think
> of every single one of them as being completely exploited, gaining nothing
> from the arrangement, and even if they did gain something we would
> amusingly
> be less ethical if we showed the consideration of taking lives of positive
> value
> into our evaluation of whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise
> them
> for food, there is nothing for me to believe except that you're trying to
> promote
> their elimination/"ar". I think of them as I do all other living things,
> so you need
> to explain WHY TF??? I should think of them completely differently. So
> please
> explain why.

Because you can never derive a net moral benefit from treating livestock
well. The best we can do is to give them what we OWE them, a decent life,
free of suffering, and a quick painless death.

This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it

gutless punk and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote:
> Nobody likes me because I **** my dead grandmother up the ass.

This Leif Erikson is one sick mother, oops garndmother ****er

wrote:

> I'm dying of AIDS.

Good.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I'm dying of AIDS.
>
> Good.

Hey Goober!!! How about inventing some new words for us?

"Jamtart-ness" was a real winner!

LOL!!

stupid ****wit ronnie hamilton gurgled:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm dying of AIDS.
> >
> > Good.
>
>
>
> Hey

I don't know why you even bother, ronnie. You *know* I'm going to
contact my friends at the German ISP and have them cancel your posts
tomorrow; why do you waste your time?

This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it

gutless punk and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote:

> Nobody likes me because I **** my dead grandmother up the ass.

This Leif Erikson is one sick mother, oops grandmother ****er

wrote:

> This is why I eat the shit of hummingbirds.

Right.

This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it

gutless punk and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote:

> Nobody likes me because I **** my dead grandmother up the ass.

This Leif Erikson is one sick mother, oops and grandmother ****er

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:37:19 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:08:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:45:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:0oaas151hgiqg4so9jdrudtq7ps5kt0kp6@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
>>>>>> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh?
>>>>
>>>> Your reply to your paste in no way prevents us from considering the
>>>> fact that you pasted.
>>>
>>>I didn't intend it to.
>>
>> So we can agree that it was of no value, and a total waste that
>> would have been better to leave out.
>
>No, we don't.
>
>> So why did you even bother?
>
>Because it's true.

It was stupid of you to bring it up.

>> Why did you paste a fact you disagree with in the first place?
>
>I don't disagree with it, I disagree with your false interperation of it.

You don't believe life has positive value to any animals raised
for food. LOL...you can't even understand the concept, because
it doesn't involve imaginary browny points for you/"aras".

>> And
>> then why did you recently reply to your own paste that you never
>> understood, in the meaningless way that you did?
>
>Non sequitor.

That's what I asked. Why did you reply to your own paste that you
can't understand, with the non sequitur that you replied with?

>>>> Of course as all your replies it makes me wonder
>>>> why you ever pasted the fact to begin with, since you not only can't
>>>> understand the fact but you are insanely opposed to it ever being taken
>>>> into consideration.
>>>
>>>You obviously misconstruing the statement, it refers to animals who are
>>>living or will be born anyway. It in no way suggests that we *ought to*
>>>raise them in order that they can be treated well. That is an absurd
>>>bass-ackwards idea.
>>
>> It's you/"aras" who say we should make the change and STOP
>> raising livestock.
>
>They say it, not I.
>
>> I question why we should do so,
>
>Good question, ask one of them.
>
>> and so far the
>> "best" that YOU have been able to come up with is that it might
>> possibly result in more mice, frogs and groundhogs.
>
>That's a refutation of YOUR argument that raising livestock results in more
>animals experiencing life,

It's an attempt to make livestock elimination seem like the most ethical
option.

>not a refuation of the AR elimination goal.

LOL!!! I know you wouldn't try to refute that, you idiot.

>> Since I still
>> think of all animals in the same way,
>
>You're lying, your argument assumes, for no rational reason, that it is
>morally better to raise livestock than to allow resources to support
>wildlife.

Since you can't understand that quality of life determines whether
or not life has positive value to the animals, you can't understand
how sometimes it could be better to provide life for livestock than
for some types of wildlife. Since I believe cattle often have lives of
more positive value than mice, frogs and groundhogs, I'm free to
believe it is sometimes better to provide life for cattle than for your
favorite wildlife. You can't give such things any detailed consideration.

>> I want to know WHY we
>> should consider making the change.
>
>Ask an

I'm asking YOU because YOU brought it up. But then, you can't
ever back up any of your shit so there's no reason to expect you
could back up that action either.

>ARA, they have plenty of arguments.
>
>> LOL...it's not bass-ackwards
>> you poor goof, it's just trying to figure out wtf you people think you
>> have to offer. So far, it's still nothing better. That's not my fault.
>> It IS your/"their" fault. So it's up to you/"them" to change the
>> situation, not me...especially considering that you/"they" created
>> it to begin with by suggesting the change.
>
>Then leave it to them to provide the convincing arguments instead of setting
>up this bogus strawman about animals getting to experience life.

Billions of them do, much as you/"aras" obviously HATE the fact
for some insane reason.

>I guarantee
>that their arguments will fall apart when examined, *without* resorting to
>the logic of the larder.

As yet none of you have given even one reason why we should not
give livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths.

[...]
>> I think of them as I do all other living things,
>> so you need
>> to explain WHY TF??? I should think of them completely differently. So
>> please
>> explain why.
>
>Because you can never derive a net moral benefit from treating livestock
>well. The best we can do is to give them what we OWE them, a decent life,
>free of suffering, and a quick painless death.

That doesn't explain why I should think of them differently than any
other animals in regards to what life might mean to THEM. You can't
even relate to that, because all you can think about is some imaginary
moral benefit--"can never derive a net moral benefit"--to YOU. "The
best we can do"...you're pathetic, but believe yourself ethically superior
BECAUSE of your inconsideration of the animals.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:24:23 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:59:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>>>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the
>>>>>causing
>>>>>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the
>>>>>position
>>>>>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>>>>
>>>> What "this" are you referring to?
>>>
>>>Are you dense? I just explained it. "This" is the act of killing animals
>>>to
>>>use them as food.
>>
>> Finally! Damn, it only took 5 or 6 years for one of you to say WHAT you
>> think the "wrongness" is.
>
>It took you THAT long to figure out what ARA/vegans consider to be wrong?
>You ARE dense.
>
>> So does that mean that we have to wait until
>> 2112 before one of you can explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong
>> to kill them?
>
>No,

So far that appears to be a lie...

>many of them give elaborate explanations.
>
>> Or will it be even longer for something as hard for you as
>> that? Or--least likely of all--can you just go ahead and explain it now?
>
>Why should I

....and now you have proven that your "No" is a lie.

>indulge your time-wasting questions? You can read AR/vegan
>literature as well as I can.
>
>>>>>By
>>>>>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the situation"
>>>>>you
>>>>>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto
>>>>>yourself,
>>>>>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring to
>>>>>"some of them who benefit".
>>>>
>>>> Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and
>>>> which
>>>> do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the fact.
>>>
>>>It's meaningless to vaguely "point out" that some do and some don't.
>>
>> It's meaningless to you who don't understand, so of course are
>> completely
>> unable to take it into consideration. I do. You can't.
>
>I understand it fine,

LOL! You don't understand it at all, you poor fool.

>it's a vague,

LOL...you poor fool...

>meaningless

....LOL...I told you you can't understand it.

>assertion.

It's a fact that you amusingly even pasted one time, but
you never have and never will understand.

>>>>>It's a horrible mess you have created,
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! I didn't create anything you poor sap.
>>>
>>>Yes you have you moron, you have painted yourself into a corner with no
>>>means of escape.
>>
>> I consider aspects of the situation that you/"aras" are opposed to
>> seeing
>> considered.
>
>No you don't.

LOL!!! Yes I do you stupid ass. It's because I do that you oppose me
doing it, you poor, poor, stupid fool.

>You attribute moral significance to the lives of livestock in
>a completely unsupportable way.
>
>>>>>and you
>>>>>just keep making it worse.
>>>>
>>>> I don't make anything worse either.
>>>
>>>The longer you stick to this stupid idea the worse you look.
>>
>> Of course I feel the same way toward you, since you have nothing
>> to offer but I do.
>
>You are offering sophistry, self-serving circular logic.
>
>I love eating meat, therefore I buy it, therefore people raise livestock,
>therefore livestock get to experience life, therefore my love of eating meat
>amounts to a moral act. It's a mess.

It's just more than you/"aras" want people to take into consideration,
because it works against the "ar" elimination objective.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:37:19 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:08:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:45:55 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:qd9ls1pobri46n5s5sg6at9blo121pmmif@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:06:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:0oaas151hgiqg4so9jdrudtq7ps5kt0kp6@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>>>>> From: "Dutch" >
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal.
>>>>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are
>>>>>>>>living.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That most obvious fact in no way prevents us from considering
>>>>>>> the first one, much as you apparently wish that it did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your reply to your paste in no way prevents us from considering the
>>>>> fact that you pasted.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't intend it to.
>>>
>>> So we can agree that it was of no value, and a total waste that
>>> would have been better to leave out.
>>
>>No, we don't.
>>
>>> So why did you even bother?
>>
>>Because it's true.
>
> It was stupid of you to bring it up.

Why?

>>> Why did you paste a fact you disagree with in the first place?
>>
>>I don't disagree with it, I disagree with your false interperation of it.
>
> You don't believe life has positive value to any animals raised
> for food. LOL...you can't even understand the concept, because
> it doesn't involve imaginary browny points for you/"aras".

Explain the concept. What do you mean by "life has positive value to
animals"? Then explain why we should find it important that livestock have
this "positive value" instead of some wild animals. You won't, because there
is no valid reason.

>>> And
>>> then why did you recently reply to your own paste that you never
>>> understood, in the meaningless way that you did?
>>
>>Non sequitor.
>
> That's what I asked. Why did you reply to your own paste that you
> can't understand, with the non sequitur that you replied with?

Another non-sequitor. Please learn to form coherent sentences.

>>>>> Of course as all your replies it makes me wonder
>>>>> why you ever pasted the fact to begin with, since you not only can't
>>>>> understand the fact but you are insanely opposed to it ever being
>>>>> taken
>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>
>>>>You obviously misconstruing the statement, it refers to animals who are
>>>>living or will be born anyway. It in no way suggests that we *ought to*
>>>>raise them in order that they can be treated well. That is an absurd
>>>>bass-ackwards idea.
>>>
>>> It's you/"aras" who say we should make the change and STOP
>>> raising livestock.
>>
>>They say it, not I.
>>
>>> I question why we should do so,
>>
>>Good question, ask one of them.
>>
>>> and so far the
>>> "best" that YOU have been able to come up with is that it might
>>> possibly result in more mice, frogs and groundhogs.
>>
>>That's a refutation of YOUR argument that raising livestock results in
>>more
>>animals experiencing life,
>
> It's an attempt to make livestock elimination seem like the most
> ethical
> option.

No, it's a refutation of YOUR argument that raising livestock results in
more animals experiencing life. YOUR argument that we ought "consider the
lives" of livestock doesn't work, it's bogus. That does NOT mean the raising
livestock is less ethical, it simply means that YOUR particular line of
reasoning is invalid.

>>not a refuation of the AR elimination goal.
>
> LOL!!! I know you wouldn't try to refute that, you idiot.
>
>>> Since I still
>>> think of all animals in the same way,
>>
>>You're lying, your argument assumes, for no rational reason, that it is
>>morally better to raise livestock than to allow resources to support
>>wildlife.
>
> Since you can't understand that quality of life determines whether
> or not life has positive value to the animals, you can't understand
> how sometimes it could be better to provide life for livestock than
> for some types of wildlife. Since I believe cattle often have lives of
> more positive value than mice, frogs and groundhogs, I'm free to
> believe it is sometimes better to provide life for cattle than for your
> favorite wildlife. You can't give such things any detailed consideration.

Now that you can't claim that MORE animals "experience life" you have fallen
back on a claim that "some livestock" have better lives than wildlife. That
is another vague, dead-end argument. It's better to raise livestock because
we can make use of livestock, that is the only valid and honest reason.

>>> I want to know WHY we
>>> should consider making the change.
>>
>>Ask an
>
> I'm asking YOU because YOU brought it up.

I didn't bring it up. I don't want to stop raising livestock.

But then, you can't
> ever back up any of your shit so there's no reason to expect you
> could back up that action either.

You're the one claiming we ought to "consider the lives" of livestock, why
should we?

>>ARA, they have plenty of arguments.
>>
>>> LOL...it's not bass-ackwards
>>> you poor goof, it's just trying to figure out wtf you people think you
>>> have to offer. So far, it's still nothing better. That's not my fault.
>>> It IS your/"their" fault. So it's up to you/"them" to change the
>>> situation, not me...especially considering that you/"they" created
>>> it to begin with by suggesting the change.
>>
>>Then leave it to them to provide the convincing arguments instead of
>>setting
>>up this bogus strawman about animals getting to experience life.
>
> Billions of them do, much as you/"aras" obviously HATE the fact
> for some insane reason.

I don't hate the fact, I dislike the way you use it to justify yourself.

>>I guarantee
>>that their arguments will fall apart when examined, *without* resorting to
>>the logic of the larder.
>
> As yet none of you have given even one reason why we should not
> give livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths.

We've given you MANY valid reasons, you don't or can't listen.

> [...]
>>> I think of them as I do all other living things,
>>> so you need
>>> to explain WHY TF??? I should think of them completely differently. So
>>> please
>>> explain why.
>>
>>Because you can never derive a net moral benefit from treating livestock
>>well. The best we can do is to give them what we OWE them, a decent life,
>>free of suffering, and a quick painless death.
>
> That doesn't explain why I should think of them differently than any
> other animals in regards to what life might mean to THEM.

That's not what you're doing, you are *implicitly* concluding that since
[you assert] that some animals have "lives of positive value" that raising
them is doing something good, generous, worthwhile, admirable. You are
essentially patting yourself on the back for eating a hamburger.

>You can't
> even relate to that, because all you can think about is some imaginary
> moral benefit--"can never derive a net moral benefit"--to YOU. "The
> best we can do"...you're pathetic, but believe yourself ethically superior
> BECAUSE of your inconsideration of the animals.

You aren't "considering animals", see above.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:24:23 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:59:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>>>>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the
>>>>>>causing
>>>>>>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the
>>>>>>position
>>>>>>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> What "this" are you referring to?
>>>>
>>>>Are you dense? I just explained it. "This" is the act of killing animals
>>>>to
>>>>use them as food.
>>>
>>> Finally! Damn, it only took 5 or 6 years for one of you to say WHAT
>>> you
>>> think the "wrongness" is.
>>
>>It took you THAT long to figure out what ARA/vegans consider to be wrong?
>>You ARE dense.
>>
>>> So does that mean that we have to wait until
>>> 2112 before one of you can explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong
>>> to kill them?
>>
>>No,
>
> So far that appears to be a lie...

Have you never read any AR propaganda? Where have you been all these years?

>>many of them give elaborate explanations.
>>
>>> Or will it be even longer for something as hard for you as
>>> that? Or--least likely of all--can you just go ahead and explain it now?
>>
>>Why should I
>
> ...and now you have proven that your "No" is a lie.

So now your position is that ARAs and vegans have never explained why they
think it's wrong to kill animals?

This just gets stranger and stranger...

>>indulge your time-wasting questions? You can read AR/vegan
>>literature as well as I can.
>>
>>>>>>By
>>>>>>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the
>>>>>>situation"
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto
>>>>>>yourself,
>>>>>>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>"some of them who benefit".
>>>>>
>>>>> Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and
>>>>> which
>>>>> do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the
>>>>> fact.
>>>>
>>>>It's meaningless to vaguely "point out" that some do and some don't.
>>>
>>> It's meaningless to you who don't understand, so of course are
>>> completely
>>> unable to take it into consideration. I do. You can't.
>>
>>I understand it fine,
>
> LOL! You don't understand it at all, you poor fool.
>
>>it's a vague,
>
> LOL...you poor fool...
>
>>meaningless
>
> ...LOL...I told you you can't understand it.
>
>>assertion.
>
> It's a fact that you amusingly even pasted one time, but
> you never have and never will understand.

It's sophistry, childish sophistry.

>>>>>>It's a horrible mess you have created,
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! I didn't create anything you poor sap.
>>>>
>>>>Yes you have you moron, you have painted yourself into a corner with no
>>>>means of escape.
>>>
>>> I consider aspects of the situation that you/"aras" are opposed to
>>> seeing
>>> considered.
>>
>>No you don't.
>
> LOL!!! Yes I do you stupid ass. It's because I do that you oppose me
> doing it, you poor, poor, stupid fool.

See below.

>>You attribute moral significance to the lives of livestock in
>>a completely unsupportable way.
>>
>>>>>>and you
>>>>>>just keep making it worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't make anything worse either.
>>>>
>>>>The longer you stick to this stupid idea the worse you look.
>>>
>>> Of course I feel the same way toward you, since you have nothing
>>> to offer but I do.
>>
>>You are offering sophistry, self-serving circular logic.
>>
>>I love eating meat, therefore I buy it, therefore people raise livestock,
>>therefore livestock get to experience life, therefore my love of eating
>>meat
>>amounts to a moral act. It's a mess.
>
> It's just more than you/"aras" want people to take into consideration,
> because it works against the "ar" elimination objective.

No it doesn't, it supports it, bad arguments *against* a cause actually help
that cause.

wrote:
> This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
> meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it

>
> gutless punk and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> > Nobody likes me because I **** my dead grandmother up the ass.
>
> This Leif Erikson is one sick mother, oops and grandmother ****er

bpg, don't worry about THE GOOBER. He's actually afraid of what you
have to say.

He's going to extra lengths to try to silence you. Just realize he's a
nobody and keep posting info.;o)

Leif Erikson wrote:
> stupid ****wit ronnie hamilton gurgled:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm dying of AIDS.
> > >
> > > Good.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey
>
> I don't know why you even bother, ronnie. You *know* I'm going to
> contact my friends at the German ISP and have them cancel your posts
> tomorrow; why do you waste your time?

Yeh, ~whatever~ Goober.

Sheldon Harper wrote:

> dh@. wrote in news

>
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
> > wrote:
>
> >>dh@. wrote:
>
> >>> __________________________________________________ _______
> >>> From: Rudy Canoza >
> >>> Message-ID: et>
> >>>
> >>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> > [...]
> >>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>
> > What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>
> Wrongness is a relative term with value only within the context of
> a comparative system. Some humans like the idea that their variety
> of comparatives is the only validity which exists. When such thinking
> overwhelms all sensibility then they're legitimately called
> fundamentalists whether or not they approve of the moniker.

Hi Sheldon -
What an intelligent thinking man's response you have here to the issue of
"wrongness" - ! Folks need to think of 'ethics' like engineers think of
'physics' - every action has its qual amd opposite reaction. Jesus was, and is,
right. Offering LOVE & Help generously is the MOST POWERFUL way YET DISCOVERED
to win PERMANENT SOCIAL PEACE. 'Loving the Great Good God first - and then thy
Neighbor as thyself' is THE Cornerstone of our Noble American Republic. Hence
we can apologize when wrong and seek improvements as needed (that is: only as
they are more widely understood can they be 'seen' - and then accepted). The
full spectrum of human history and its vast array of failed and successful
social/political experiments provides us with all THE PROOF we need! (Be
patient folks - impatience can reeely cost ya!) Thanks Sheldon!
Wes/MO

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:39:54 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:24:23 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:59:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ _______
>>>>>>>>>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What exactly is the wrongness Goo? Anyone?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the
>>>>>>>causing
>>>>>>>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the
>>>>>>>position
>>>>>>>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "this" are you referring to?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you dense? I just explained it. "This" is the act of killing animals
>>>>>to
>>>>>use them as food.
>>>>
>>>> Finally! Damn, it only took 5 or 6 years for one of you to say WHAT
>>>> you
>>>> think the "wrongness" is.
>>>
>>>It took you THAT long to figure out what ARA/vegans consider to be wrong?
>>>You ARE dense.
>>>
>>>> So does that mean that we have to wait until
>>>> 2112 before one of you can explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong
>>>> to kill them?
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>> So far that appears to be a lie...
>
>Have you never read any AR propaganda?

Yes, but never any that explained exactly WHY it's wrong.

>Where have you been all these years?

Discussing it with people like you, who can't explain WHY
it's wrong either.

>>>many of them give elaborate explanations.
>>>
>>>> Or will it be even longer for something as hard for you as
>>>> that? Or--least likely of all--can you just go ahead and explain it now?
>>>
>>>Why should I
>>
>> ...and now you have proven that your "No" is a lie.
>
>So now your position is that ARAs and vegans have never explained why they
>think it's wrong to kill animals?

Not yet. For example: just as you have never done it and never will, neither
has anyone else that I've read.

>This just gets stranger and stranger...

You people just can't explain it. That is strange no doubt, but apparently
you just can't do it...strange indeed...

>>>indulge your time-wasting questions? You can read AR/vegan
>>>literature as well as I can.
>>>
>>>>>>>By
>>>>>>>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the
>>>>>>>situation"
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto
>>>>>>>yourself,
>>>>>>>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>"some of them who benefit".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the
>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's meaningless to vaguely "point out" that some do and some don't.
>>>>
>>>> It's meaningless to you who don't understand, so of course are
>>>> completely
>>>> unable to take it into consideration. I do. You can't.
>>>
>>>I understand it fine,
>>
>> LOL! You don't understand it at all, you poor fool.
>>
>>>it's a vague,
>>
>> LOL...you poor fool...
>>
>>>meaningless
>>
>> ...LOL...I told you you can't understand it.
>>
>>>assertion.
>>
>> It's a fact that you amusingly even pasted one time, but
>> you never have and never will understand.
>
>It's sophistry, childish sophistry.

If you think so, why did you ever paste it in the first place???

****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:39:54 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:24:23 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:59:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:38:43 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:11:06 GMT, Leif Erikson
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________ __________________
>>>>>>>>>>>From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: et>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>ALL excellent and factual observations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exactly is the wrongness Leif? Anyone?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The "wrongness" which is claimed to exist by ARAs as a result of the
>>>>>>>>causing
>>>>>>>>of harm to animals. Legitimate opponents of AR thinking take the
>>>>>>>>position
>>>>>>>>that the onus is on ARAs to establish that this is actually a wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What "this" are you referring to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you dense? I just explained it. "This" is the act of killing animals
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>use them as food.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally! Damn, it only took 5 or 6 years for one of you to say WHAT
>>>>>you
>>>>>think the "wrongness" is.
>>>>
>>>>It took you THAT long to figure out what ARA/vegans consider to be wrong?
>>>>You ARE dense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So does that mean that we have to wait until
>>>>>2112 before one of you can explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong
>>>>>to kill them?
>>>>
>>>>No,
>>>
>>> So far that appears to be a lie...
>>
>>Have you never read any AR propaganda?
>
>
> Yes, but never any that explained exactly WHY it's wrong.

You're lying.

>>Where have you been all these years?
>
>
> Discussing it with people like you, who can't explain WHY
> it's wrong either.

He doesn't believe it is wrong, ****wit. You know that.

>>>>many of them give elaborate explanations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Or will it be even longer for something as hard for you as
>>>>>that? Or--least likely of all--can you just go ahead and explain it now?
>>>>
>>>>Why should I
>>>
>>>...and now you have proven that your "No" is a lie.
>>
>>So now your position is that ARAs and vegans have never explained why they
>>think it's wrong to kill animals?
>
>
> Not yet.

That's a lie, ****wit. You know full well why they
think it's wrong.

But that's not the issue right now, ****wit. The issue
is why do *YOU* think it's wrong? You do think it's
wrong, ****wit - that's why you desperately,
frantically are seeking mitigation for it.

>>This just gets stranger and stranger...
>
>
> You people just can't explain it.

Dutch isn't "you people"; he's not an "ara", which you
know full well.

YOU can't explain your belief that killing animals to
eat them is wrong, ****wit.

>>>>indulge your time-wasting questions? You can read AR/vegan
>>>>literature as well as I can.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>By
>>>>>>>>claiming that we ought to "consider what they get out of the
>>>>>>>>situation"
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>are implicity removing that onus from them and assuming it onto
>>>>>>>>yourself,
>>>>>>>>then failing to make your case by vaguely and meaninglessly referring
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>"some of them who benefit".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some do. Some don't. The quality of life determines which do and
>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>do not, but you have proven that you're not able to understand the
>>>>>>>fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's meaningless to vaguely "point out" that some do and some don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's meaningless to you who don't understand, so of course are
>>>>>completely
>>>>>unable to take it into consideration. I do. You can't.
>>>>
>>>>I understand it fine,
>>>
>>> LOL! You don't understand it at all, you poor fool.
>>>
>>>
>>>>it's a vague,
>>>
>>> LOL...you poor fool...
>>>
>>>
>>>>meaningless
>>>
>>>...LOL...I told you you can't understand it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>assertion.
>>>
>>> It's a fact that you amusingly even pasted one time, but
>>>you never have and never will understand.
>>
>>It's sophistry, childish sophistry.

****wit David Harrison blabbered:
>
> [...]

The wrongness is your continual lying, ****wit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fun With The Goober :¬)	dh@.	Vegan	1	13-04-2011 07:51 AM
The Goober	dh@.	Vegan	22	09-07-2008 01:17 PM
GOOBER WORLD TIME	dh@.	Vegan	0	18-03-2008 08:15 PM
hey de sade, check out your hero the Goober...	dh@.	Vegan	0	12-03-2008 04:49 PM
What's Got Goober All Wound Up?	Whining, Crying, Bawl	Vegan	0	14-02-2006 12:38 AM

Menu

About Us