On 7 Feb 2006, the Goober wondered:

>dh pointed out:

>> If the reason it's wrong is because it takes their life, it should
>> be worse to prevent life from happening at all.
>
>WHY, ****wit?

Because if you think it's wrong to provide and take life simply
because you think the life should be longer, it follows that you
*should* think it's worse to prevent what life animals *would*
have had if someone like you/"aras" didn't *prevent* them. But
of course Goo this is based on my guess that what you consider
to be the wrongness, is your idiotic belief that the animals raised
for food are somehow cheated out of what you think should be
*more* life. If you think longer life for them is so important, it
would certainly be inconsiderate of you to prevent them from
having what life they could have simply because it bothers you
for people to eat meat. Since you/"aras" absolutely REFUSE to
explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong to kill them--even as you
hilariously boast that it has been explained many times while not
providing a single example--I can only guess what your reason is,
and then consider how stupid you are from my own interpretation
of what you/"aras" consider to be the wrongness.

If you/"aras" want to finally explain WHY you think it's wrong
to kill animals for food, and the reason is *not* that you think it
somehow cheats them out of life they otherwise would have had,
should have had, or whatever... then just explain WTF else you
think is wrong with it.

dh@. wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006, the Goober wondered:
>
> >dh pointed out:
>
> >> If the reason it's wrong is because it takes their life, it should
> >> be worse to prevent life from happening at all.
> >
> >WHY, ****wit?
>
> Because if you think it's wrong to provide and take life simply
> because you think the life should be longer, it follows that you
> *should* think it's worse to prevent what life animals *would*
> have had if someone like you/"aras" didn't *prevent* them. But
> of course Goo this is based on my guess that what you consider
> to be the wrongness, is your idiotic belief that the animals raised
> for food are somehow cheated out of what you think should be
> *more* life. If you think longer life for them is so important, it
> would certainly be inconsiderate of you to prevent them from
> having what life they could have simply because it bothers you
> for people to eat meat. Since you/"aras" absolutely REFUSE to
> explain exactly WHY you think it's wrong to kill them--even as you
> hilariously boast that it has been explained many times while not
> providing a single example--I can only guess what your reason is,
> and then consider how stupid you are from my own interpretation
> of what you/"aras" consider to be the wrongness.
>
> If you/"aras" want to finally explain WHY you think it's wrong
> to kill animals for food, and the reason is *not* that you think it
> somehow cheats them out of life they otherwise would have had,
> should have had, or whatever... then just explain WTF else you
> think is wrong with it.

Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?

wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?

The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.

Sheldon Harper wrote:
> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>
> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.

Well, they don't think anything at all.

I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.

On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:

>
>Sheldon Harper wrote:
>> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>>
>> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>
>Well, they don't think anything at all.
>
>I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.

It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
depend on?

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:16:55 -0500, Sheldon Harper > wrote:

wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
:
>
>> Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>
>The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.

We will all die...we know it but animals don't. We will all be consumed
....we know it, but animals don't.Humans generally suffer more and longer
than animals who are slaughtered for food, and suffer much much more
from the knowledge that they're dying. That's how it is right now, which
is part of why I say we should consider the animals' lives as well as or
more than their deaths. There situation is not so much different from
all life that we should avoid consideration of their lives as well as their
deaths.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>
>>
>>Sheldon Harper wrote:
>>> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>>> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>>>
>>> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>>
>>Well, they don't think anything at all.
>>
>>I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>>for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>
> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> depend on?

You just disqualified yourself from participation in any discussion of
ethics.

dh@. wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
> >>
> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
> >
> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
> >
> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>
> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> depend on?

Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
if you were one of those humans? Would you believe that because someone
brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?

wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>
>>On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sheldon Harper wrote:
>>>
wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>>>>
>>>>The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>>>
>>>Well, they don't think anything at all.
>>>
>>>I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>>>for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>>
>> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>>depend on?
>
>
> Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
> there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
> slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
> if you were one of those humans? Would you believe that because someone
> brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?

The (il)logic of ****wit David Harrison's position
demands that he accept that. But because he's just
(barely) bright enough to see that that's a problem, he
instead blabbers some bullshit about "two completely
different situations".

On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>> >>
>> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>> >
>> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
>> >
>> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>>
>> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>> depend on?
>
>Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
>there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
>slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
>if you were one of those humans?

Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.

>Would you believe that because someone
>brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?

Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
>
>>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
>>> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>>> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>>> >>
>>> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think
>>> >> so.
>>> >
>>> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
>>> >
>>> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>>> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>>>
>>> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>>> depend on?
>>
>>Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
>>there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
>>slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
>>if you were one of those humans?
>
> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and
> will
> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I
> know
> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end
> of
> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
>
>>Would you believe that because someone
>>brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
>
> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.

He means a moral right ****wit, quit dodging the question.

dh@. wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
> >> >>
> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
> >> >
> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
> >> >
> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
> >>
> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> >> depend on?
> >
> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
> >if you were one of those humans?
>
> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
>
> >Would you believe that because someone
> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
>
> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.

I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
food. Would this be wrong? Also, we can ask whether there should be
laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
number of animals possible.

wrote:

> dh@. wrote:
>
>>On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sheldon Harper wrote:
>>>>>
wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, they don't think anything at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>>>>>for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>>>>
>>>> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>>>>depend on?
>>>
>>>Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
>>>there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
>>>slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
>>>if you were one of those humans?
>>
>> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
>>no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
>>it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
>>it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
>>
>>
>>>Would you believe that because someone
>>>brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
>>
>> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
>
>
> I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
> It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
> but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
> imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
> food. Would this be wrong?

****wit's slavish adherence to the ****witted (Il)Logic
of the Larder requires that he say that even if it is
wrong, the "benefit" conferred on the humans of
"getting to experience life" would outweigh the harm,
and so it would on net be a plus.


Also, we can ask whether there should be
> laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
> number of animals possible.
>

On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
>> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
>> >> >
>> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>> >>
>> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>> >> depend on?
>> >
>> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
>> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
>> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
>> >if you were one of those humans?
>>
>> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
>> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
>> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
>> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
>>
>> >Would you believe that because someone
>> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
>>
>> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
>
>I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
>It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
>but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
>imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
>food. Would this be wrong?

Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?

Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
will be killed, should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
because we all will be killed?

>Also, we can ask whether there should be
>laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
>number of animals possible.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
>
>>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >dh@. wrote:
>>> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
>>> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>>> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't
>>> >> >> think so.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>>> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>>> >>
>>> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>>> >> depend on?
>>> >
>>> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
>>> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
>>> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
>>> >if you were one of those humans?
>>>
>>> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life,
>>> and will
>>> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I
>>> know
>>> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end
>>> of
>>> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
>>>
>>> >Would you believe that because someone
>>> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
>>>
>>> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
>>
>>I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
>>It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
>>but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
>>imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
>>food. Would this be wrong?
>
> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?

Wrong for the people who do it, moron, that's the only meaning of wrong.

> Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
> will be killed,

That's not the reason they believe it's wrong. Your use of the passive voice
in your statement is either dishonest or stupid. Immorality implies *acts*
which are by definition *not* passive, they are deliberate.

ARAs believe that raising livestock is an immoral ACT for several reasons,
they a

1) It is an act of exploitation, treating sentient animals as a commodity
2) It is an act of subjecting those animals to unnatural confinement, i.e.
suffering
3) The *act* of killing them deliberately for our own use is a violent and
deliberate violation of their basic rights.

Saying that it's "because they will be killed" is a strawman. ARAs don't
care that animals "are killed" per se, they care that *humans* KILL THEM.

> should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
> because we all will be killed?

All humans and animals are not "killed", many just die of natural causes.

Get real arguments for **** sakes, after all this time.

wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >dh@. wrote:
> > >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >dh@. wrote:
> > >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
> > >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> > >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
> > >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> > >> >> depend on?
> > >> >
> > >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
> > >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
> > >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
> > >> >if you were one of those humans?
> > >>
> > >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
> > >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
> > >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
> > >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
> > >>
> > >> >Would you believe that because someone
> > >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
> > >>
> > >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
> > >
> > >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
> > >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
> > >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
> > >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
> > >food. Would this be wrong?
> >
> > Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
> >
>
> Morally wrong.
>
> > Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
> > will be killed, should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
> > because we all will be killed?
> >
>
> We won't all be killed.

Pre-emptive warning: ****wit David Harrison considers dying from some
non-human cause to be morally equivalent to being killed by someone.
He equates "we will all die" to "we will all be killed".


> And whether the births should be mourned is a
> separate issue. The question was whether the entire process of bringing
> them into existence and then killing them was morally acceptable.
>
> > >Also, we can ask whether there should be
> > >laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
> > >number of animals possible.
> >
> > · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> > steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> > get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> > over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> > get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> > machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> > draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> > derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> > contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> > better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
> What's your reply to Gaverick Matheny's article?

On 13 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
>> >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>> >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>> >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>> >> >> depend on?
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
>> >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
>> >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
>> >> >if you were one of those humans?
>> >>
>> >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
>> >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
>> >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
>> >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
>> >>
>> >> >Would you believe that because someone
>> >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
>> >>
>> >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
>> >
>> >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
>> >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
>> >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
>> >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
>> >food. Would this be wrong?
>>
>> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
>>
>
>Morally wrong.

We'd have to raise them and ask them.

>> Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
>> will be killed, should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
>> because we all will be killed?
>>
>
>We won't all be killed.

Yes we will, and denying it has never saved anyone from it.

>And whether the births should be mourned is a
>separate issue. The question was whether the entire process of bringing
>them into existence and then killing them was morally acceptable.
>
>> >Also, we can ask whether there should be
>> >laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
>> >number of animals possible.
>>
>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
>What's your reply to Gaverick Matheny's article?

Let's see it.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:08:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>raising livestock is an immoral ACT for several reasons,
>they a
>
>1) It is an act of exploitation, treating sentient animals as a commodity
>2) It is an act of subjecting those animals to unnatural confinement, i.e.
>suffering
>3) The *act* of killing them deliberately for our own use is a violent and
>deliberate violation of their basic rights.
>
>Saying that it's "because they will be killed" is a strawman. ARAs don't
>care that animals "are killed" per se, they care that *humans* KILL THEM.

Humans kill animals for many reasons. To ONLY care about the decided
and deliberate killing of livestock--as you happily don't give a shit about all
the other killing you contribute to!--makes you disgusting and grotesque.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:08:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>Vegan/ARAs believe the following: (inserted for clarity)

>>raising livestock is an immoral ACT for several reasons,
>>they a
>>
>>1) It is an act of exploitation, treating sentient animals as a commodity
>>2) It is an act of subjecting those animals to unnatural confinement, i.e.
>>suffering
>>3) The *act* of killing them deliberately for our own use is a violent and
>>deliberate violation of their basic rights.
>>
>>Saying that it's "because they will be killed" is a strawman. ARAs don't
>>care that animals "are killed" per se, they care that *humans* KILL THEM.
>
> Humans kill animals for many reasons.

True, but ARAs only think some of them are wrong.

> To ONLY care about the decided
> and deliberate killing of livestock--as you happily don't give a shit
> about all
> the other killing you contribute to!--makes you disgusting and grotesque.

Not me, those are AR ideas, and why are they grotesque? Misguided is more
like it. It's the LoL that rates as "grotesque".

And why did you play dumb and pretend that the "wrongness" is an elusive
idea when we all have known all along what ARAs think it is? Why didn't you
just state that their idea of "wrongness" is selective and self-serving?

And why did you snip my post in such a way to leave the impression that I
was submitting those points as my own ideas?

Get busy and answer those questions.

Dutch wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison lied:
> >
> > To ONLY care about the decided
> > and deliberate killing of livestock--as you happily don't give a shit
> > about all
> > the other killing you contribute to!--makes you disgusting and grotesque.
>
> Not me, those are AR ideas, and why are they grotesque? Misguided is more
> like it. It's the LoL that rates as "grotesque".
>
> And why did you play dumb and pretend that the "wrongness" is an elusive
> idea when we all have known all along what ARAs think it is? Why didn't you
> just state that their idea of "wrongness" is selective and self-serving?

There's nothing elusive about the "aras'" statements of what they think
is wrong about killing animals, but that goddamned ****wit sure has
been evasive - not elusive, evasive - about telling us what *he*
considers to be the wrongness. There is no question that he *does* see
some kind of moral evil in killing animals for human use - that's why
he desperately needs the mitigation.


> And why did you snip my post in such a way to leave the impression that I
> was submitting those points as my own ideas?

Hardly the first time the evasive pig-****er has done that.

>
> Get busy and answer those questions.

dh@. wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
> >> >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> >> >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
> >> >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> >> >> >> depend on?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
> >> >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
> >> >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
> >> >> >if you were one of those humans?
> >> >>
> >> >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
> >> >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
> >> >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
> >> >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Would you believe that because someone
> >> >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
> >> >>
> >> >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
> >> >
> >> >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
> >> >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
> >> >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
> >> >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
> >> >food. Would this be wrong?
> >>
> >> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
> >>
> >
> >Morally wrong.
>
> We'd have to raise them and ask them.
>

Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though. So what should we
do about that?

> >> Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
> >> will be killed, should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
> >> because we all will be killed?
> >>
> >
> >We won't all be killed.
>
> Yes we will, and denying it has never saved anyone from it.
>

Some of us will die a natural death. That's not the same as being
killed.

> >And whether the births should be mourned is a
> >separate issue. The question was whether the entire process of bringing
> >them into existence and then killing them was morally acceptable.
> >
> >> >Also, we can ask whether there should be
> >> >laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
> >> >number of animals possible.
> >>
> >> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
> >
> >What's your reply to Gaverick Matheny's article?
>
> Let's see it.

http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On 13 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0800, wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >dh@. wrote:
> > >> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >dh@. wrote:
> > >> >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> > >> >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> > >> >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
> > >> >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> > >> >> >> depend on?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
> > >> >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
> > >> >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
> > >> >> >if you were one of those humans?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
> > >> >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
> > >> >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
> > >> >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Would you believe that because someone
> > >> >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
> > >> >
> > >> >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
> > >> >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
> > >> >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
> > >> >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
> > >> >food. Would this be wrong?
> > >>
> > >> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Morally wrong.
> >
> > We'd have to raise them and ask them.
> >
>
> Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
> killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though. So what should we
> do about that?
>
> > >> Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
> > >> will be killed, should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
> > >> because we all will be killed?
> > >>
> > >
> > >We won't all be killed.
> >
> > Yes we will, and denying it has never saved anyone from it.
> >
>
> Some of us will die a natural death. That's not the same as being
> killed.

Don't say I didn't warn you! From my post yesterday at about 4:30pm
PST:

****wit David Harrison considers dying from some
non-human cause to be morally equivalent to being
killed by someone. He equates "we will all die" to
"we will all be killed".


>
> > >And whether the births should be mourned is a
> > >separate issue. The question was whether the entire process of bringing
> > >them into existence and then killing them was morally acceptable.
> > >
> > >> >Also, we can ask whether there should be
> > >> >laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
> > >> >number of animals possible.
> > >>
> > >> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> > >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> > >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> > >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> > >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> > >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> > >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> > >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> > >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> > >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> > >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
> > >
> > >What's your reply to Gaverick Matheny's article?
> >
> > Let's see it.
>
> http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
> > dh@. wrote:
> > > On 13 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0800, wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >dh@. wrote:
> > > >> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >dh@. wrote:
> > > >> >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> > > >> >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
> > > >> >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> > > >> >> >> depend on?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
> > > >> >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
> > > >> >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
> > > >> >> >if you were one of those humans?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
> > > >> >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
> > > >> >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
> > > >> >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >Would you believe that because someone
> > > >> >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
> > > >> >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
> > > >> >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
> > > >> >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
> > > >> >food. Would this be wrong?
> > > >>
> > > >> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Morally wrong.
> > >
> > > We'd have to raise them and ask them.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
> > killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though. So what should we
> > do about that?
> >
> > > >> Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
> > > >> will be killed, should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
> > > >> because we all will be killed?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >We won't all be killed.
> > >
> > > Yes we will, and denying it has never saved anyone from it.
> > >
> >
> > Some of us will die a natural death. That's not the same as being
> > killed.
>
> Don't say I didn't warn you! From my post yesterday at about 4:30pm
> PST:
>
> ****wit David Harrison considers dying from some
> non-human cause to be morally equivalent to being
> killed by someone. He equates "we will all die" to
> "we will all be killed".
>


Oh yeh Goober. We are all very impressed by your "I told you so"
abilities.

Now you can re-post that a couple of million times over the next few
years basking in the glow of "I told you so".









>
> >
> > > >And whether the births should be mourned is a
> > > >separate issue. The question was whether the entire process of bringing
> > > >them into existence and then killing them was morally acceptable.
> > > >
> > > >> >Also, we can ask whether there should be
> > > >> >laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
> > > >> >number of animals possible.
> > > >>
> > > >> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> > > >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> > > >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> > > >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> > > >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> > > >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> > > >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> > > >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> > > >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> > > >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> > > >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
> > > >
> > > >What's your reply to Gaverick Matheny's article?
> > >
> > > Let's see it.
> >
> > http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
> > dh@. wrote:
> > > On 13 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0800, wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >dh@. wrote:
> > > >> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >dh@. wrote:
> > > >> >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> > > >> >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
> > > >> >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> > > >> >> >> depend on?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
> > > >> >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
> > > >> >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
> > > >> >> >if you were one of those humans?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
> > > >> >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
> > > >> >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
> > > >> >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >Would you believe that because someone
> > > >> >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
> > > >> >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
> > > >> >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
> > > >> >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
> > > >> >food. Would this be wrong?
> > > >>
> > > >> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Morally wrong.
> > >
> > > We'd have to raise them and ask them.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
> > killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though. So what should we
> > do about that?
> >
> > > >> Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
> > > >> will be killed, should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
> > > >> because we all will be killed?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >We won't all be killed.
> > >
> > > Yes we will, and denying it has never saved anyone from it.
> > >
> >
> > Some of us will die a natural death. That's not the same as being
> > killed.
>
> Don't say I didn't warn you!

You did warn me. But what could I do?

> From my post yesterday at about 4:30pm
> PST:
>
> ****wit David Harrison considers dying from some
> non-human cause to be morally equivalent to being
> killed by someone. He equates "we will all die" to
> "we will all be killed".
>
>
> >
> > > >And whether the births should be mourned is a
> > > >separate issue. The question was whether the entire process of bringing
> > > >them into existence and then killing them was morally acceptable.
> > > >
> > > >> >Also, we can ask whether there should be
> > > >> >laws in our society requiring that food production kill the least
> > > >> >number of animals possible.
> > > >>
> > > >> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> > > >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> > > >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> > > >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> > > >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> > > >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> > > >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> > > >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> > > >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> > > >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> > > >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
> > > >
> > > >What's your reply to Gaverick Matheny's article?
> > >
> > > Let's see it.
> >
> > http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>> >> >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>> >> >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>> >> >> >> depend on?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
>> >> >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
>> >> >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
>> >> >> >if you were one of those humans?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
>> >> >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
>> >> >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
>> >> >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Would you believe that because someone
>> >> >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
>> >> >
>> >> >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
>> >> >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
>> >> >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
>> >> >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
>> >> >food. Would this be wrong?
>> >>
>> >> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Morally wrong.
>>
>> We'd have to raise them and ask them.
>>
>
>Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.

How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
going on??????

On 14 Feb 2006 17:13:53 -0800, "shrubkiller" > wrote:

>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > dh@. wrote:
>> > > On 13 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0800, wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >dh@. wrote:
>> > > >> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >dh@. wrote:
>> > > >> >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
>> > > >> >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
>> > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
>> > > >> >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
>> > > >> >> >> depend on?
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
>> > > >> >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
>> > > >> >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
>> > > >> >> >if you were one of those humans?
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
>> > > >> >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
>> > > >> >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
>> > > >> >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> >Would you believe that because someone
>> > > >> >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
>> > > >> >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
>> > > >> >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
>> > > >> >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
>> > > >> >food. Would this be wrong?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >Morally wrong.
>> > >
>> > > We'd have to raise them and ask them.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>> > killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though. So what should we
>> > do about that?
>> >
>> > > >> Since "aras" insist that it's wrong for livestock to live because they
>> > > >> will be killed, should they mourn the births of all animals and humans
>> > > >> because we all will be killed?
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >We won't all be killed.
>> > >
>> > > Yes we will, and denying it has never saved anyone from it.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Some of us will die a natural death. That's not the same as being
>> > killed.
>>
>> Don't say I didn't warn you! From my post yesterday at about 4:30pm
>> PST:
>>
>> ****wit David Harrison considers dying from some
>> non-human cause to be morally equivalent to being
>> killed by someone. He equates "we will all die" to
>> "we will all be killed".
>>
>
>
>Oh yeh Goober. We are all very impressed by your "I told you so"
>abilities.
>
>Now you can re-post that a couple of million times over the next few
>years basking in the glow of "I told you so".

That's only if you accept his interpretation. If you accept his
insistence that some things just die but are not killed by anything,
then I guess he fooled you.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:44:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:08:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>Vegan/ARAs believe the following: (inserted for clarity)
>
>>>raising livestock is an immoral ACT for several reasons,
>>>they a
>>>
>>>1) It is an act of exploitation, treating sentient animals as a commodity
>>>2) It is an act of subjecting those animals to unnatural confinement, i.e.
>>>suffering
>>>3) The *act* of killing them deliberately for our own use is a violent and
>>>deliberate violation of their basic rights.
>>>
>>>Saying that it's "because they will be killed" is a strawman. ARAs don't
>>>care that animals "are killed" per se, they care that *humans* KILL THEM.
>>
>> Humans kill animals for many reasons.
>
>True, but ARAs only think some of them are wrong.
>
>> To ONLY care about the decided
>> and deliberate killing of livestock--as you happily don't give a shit
>> about all
>> the other killing you contribute to!--makes you disgusting and grotesque.
>
>Not me,

Maybe not.

>those are AR ideas,

They are your/"ar" ideas.

>and why are they grotesque?

Because just not caring about the deaths you/"they" contribute to is
no better than meat consumers not caring either...

>Misguided is more
>like it. It's the LoL that rates as "grotesque".

...and worse than wanting to provide lives of positive value and humane
deaths, ie the LoL, ie decent AW. What makes it grotesque imo is that
you/"they" oppose decent AW, regardless of how good you/"they" think
your reason is for opposing it.

>And why did you play dumb and pretend that the "wrongness" is an elusive
>idea when we all have known all along what ARAs think it is?

Because as yet we don't know WHY "aras" think that raising and killing
animals for food is wrong.

>Why didn't you
>just state that their idea of "wrongness" is selective and self-serving?
>
>And why did you snip my post in such a way to leave the impression that I
>was submitting those points as my own ideas?

You agree with them or you wouldn't have presented them in opposition
to decent AW.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:44:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:08:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>Vegan/ARAs believe the following: (inserted for clarity)
>>
>>>>raising livestock is an immoral ACT for several reasons,
>>>>they a
>>>>
>>>>1) It is an act of exploitation, treating sentient animals as a
>>>>commodity
>>>>2) It is an act of subjecting those animals to unnatural confinement,
>>>>i.e.
>>>>suffering
>>>>3) The *act* of killing them deliberately for our own use is a violent
>>>>and
>>>>deliberate violation of their basic rights.
>>>>
>>>>Saying that it's "because they will be killed" is a strawman. ARAs don't
>>>>care that animals "are killed" per se, they care that *humans* KILL
>>>>THEM.
>>>
>>> Humans kill animals for many reasons.
>>
>>True, but ARAs only think some of them are wrong.
>>
>>> To ONLY care about the decided
>>> and deliberate killing of livestock--as you happily don't give a shit
>>> about all
>>> the other killing you contribute to!--makes you disgusting and
>>> grotesque.
>>
>>Not me,
>
> Maybe not.

Definitely not.

>>those are AR ideas,
>
> They are your/"ar" ideas.

They are not my ideas. You asked about the wrongness, I told you about it.

>>and why are they grotesque?
>
> Because just not caring about the deaths you/"they" contribute to is
> no better than meat consumers not caring either...

Why don't hear you calling meat eaters grotesque?

>>Misguided is more
>>like it. It's the LoL that rates as "grotesque".
>
> ...and worse than wanting to provide lives of positive value and humane
> deaths, ie the LoL, ie decent AW. What makes it grotesque imo is that
> you/"they" oppose decent AW, regardless of how good you/"they" think
> your reason is for opposing it.

Your LoL is not AW, it's a perversion of ultilitarian AR.

>>And why did you play dumb and pretend that the "wrongness" is an elusive
>>idea when we all have known all along what ARAs think it is?
>
> Because as yet we don't know WHY "aras" think that raising and killing
> animals for food is wrong.

Yes we do, we just don't buy it. Not knowing what an idea is and not
agreeing with it are completely different things.

>>Why didn't you
>>just state that their idea of "wrongness" is selective and self-serving?
>>
>>And why did you snip my post in such a way to leave the impression that I
>>was submitting those points as my own ideas?
>
> You agree with them or you wouldn't have presented them in opposition
> to decent AW.

I don't agree with them and I don't oppose decent AW. Why can't you address
my actual opposition to the LoL?

Dutch wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:44:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:08:36 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Vegan/ARAs believe the following: (inserted for clarity)
> >>
> >>>>raising livestock is an immoral ACT for several reasons,
> >>>>they a
> >>>>
> >>>>1) It is an act of exploitation, treating sentient animals as a
> >>>>commodity
> >>>>2) It is an act of subjecting those animals to unnatural confinement,
> >>>>i.e.
> >>>>suffering
> >>>>3) The *act* of killing them deliberately for our own use is a violent
> >>>>and
> >>>>deliberate violation of their basic rights.
> >>>>
> >>>>Saying that it's "because they will be killed" is a strawman. ARAs don't
> >>>>care that animals "are killed" per se, they care that *humans* KILL
> >>>>THEM.
> >>>
> >>> Humans kill animals for many reasons.
> >>
> >>True, but ARAs only think some of them are wrong.
> >>
> >>> To ONLY care about the decided
> >>> and deliberate killing of livestock--as you happily don't give a shit
> >>> about all
> >>> the other killing you contribute to!--makes you disgusting and
> >>> grotesque.
> >>
> >>Not me,
> >
> > Maybe not.
>
> Definitely not.
>
> >>those are AR ideas,
> >
> > They are your/"ar" ideas.
>
> They are not my ideas. You asked about the wrongness, I told you about it.

He already knew what "vegans" consider wrong about humans killing
animals for our use. He was lying when he said he didn't know. When
you see a post from 'dh@.', you know you'll be reading a pack of
****witted lies.

dh@. wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 13 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 11 Feb 2006 16:17:34 -0800, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 9 Feb 2006 22:23:40 -0800, wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 8 Feb 2006 21:11:19 -0800, wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Sheldon Harper wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote in news:1139448780.659544.172590
> >> >> >> >> >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Do you think it would be wrong to raise humans for food?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> The yeasts and molds or we feed at the end of our lives don't think so.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Well, they don't think anything at all.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I meant to ask David: do you think it would be wrong to raise humans
> >> >> >> >> >for food and kill them before they have died a natural death.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It depends how they'd be raised, doesn't it? What else could it
> >> >> >> >> depend on?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Well, that's an interesting view. Most people would intuitively think
> >> >> >> >there was something wrong with bringing humans into existence and
> >> >> >> >slaughtering them before they died a natural death. How would you feel
> >> >> >> >if you were one of those humans?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Okay, I get to provide the details. If God exists he gave me life, and will
> >> >> >> no doubt kill me. Whether he exists or not something will kill me and I know
> >> >> >> it. So far life has had positive value to me, and I hope that at the end of
> >> >> >> it I'll still be in a position to feel the same way.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Would you believe that because someone
> >> >> >> >brought you into existence, that gave them a right to kill you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Rights are a legal matter. It would be illegal here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I was asking whether you would feel they had a moral right to kill you.
> >> >> >It's all very well to point out what the law is in the actual world,
> >> >> >but that only raises the question of what the law should be. We can
> >> >> >imagine a society in which it was legal to raise and kill humans for
> >> >> >food. Would this be wrong?
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong how? Wrong for them, or wrong for something else, or both?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Morally wrong.
> >>
> >> We'd have to raise them and ask them.
> >>
> >
> >Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
> >killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
>
> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
> going on??????

Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
the offing.

On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:

>> >Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>> >killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
>>
>> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
>> going on??????
>
>Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
>the offing.

They don't know about death, so they're not afraid of it. They just
become afraid of new conditions in general, or if someone hurts them
or something. If people would be considerate, there's no reason why
their deaths should be overly frightening or painful. I take all of that into
consideration when I suggest the decent lives that the Goos amusingly
get away with saying I don't consider.

dh@. wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> >Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
> >> >killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
> >>
> >> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
> >> going on??????
> >
> >Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
> >the offing.
>
> They don't know about death, so they're not afraid of it. They just
> become afraid of new conditions in general, or if someone hurts them
> or something. If people would be considerate, there's no reason why
> their deaths should be overly frightening or painful. I take all of that into
> consideration when I suggest the decent lives that the Goos amusingly
> get away with saying I don't consider.




I hardly agree. Animals sense danger as well as hear the painful sounds
made by the animals ahead of them on the killing floor.

Take a trip through a slaughter house and open your eyes.

****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant cracker in
Buford, GA, lied:

> On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>>
>>>On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>>>Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>>>>killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
>>>
>>> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
>>>going on??????
>>
>>Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
>>the offing.
>
>
> They don't know about death,

Prove it, ****wit.

dh@. wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> >Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
> >> >killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
> >>
> >> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
> >> going on??????
> >
> >Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
> >the offing.
>
> They don't know about death, so they're not afraid of it.

This could be disputed. At any rate, the fact remains that death harms
them. We discussed earlier the case of raising humans and killing them
for food. Let us suppose that these humans were intellectually
impaired, and didn't know what death was. Would this mean that it was
acceptable to raise and kill them for food?

> They just
> become afraid of new conditions in general, or if someone hurts them
> or something. If people would be considerate, there's no reason why
> their deaths should be overly frightening or painful. I take all of that into
> consideration when I suggest the decent lives that the Goos amusingly
> get away with saying I don't consider.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 the Goober wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant cracker in
>Buford, GA, lied:
>
>> On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>>>
>>>>On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>>>>>killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
>>>>
>>>> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
>>>>going on??????
>>>
>>>Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
>>>the offing.
>>
>>
>> They don't know about death,
>
>Prove it, ****wit.

They are born not knowing Goo, so when, and HOW??? do you
think they find out about it? NO! Goober, it is NOT like Chicken
Run or the Logic of the Talking "ar" Pig! So don't try telling me
they talk about it, and sing songs about it, or draw pictures, or
anything like that. Tell me Goobernicus, how you think they *possibly*
could/do learn about death, and to fear it?

On 19 Feb 2006 02:38:09 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >> >Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>> >> >killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
>> >>
>> >> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
>> >> going on??????
>> >
>> >Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
>> >the offing.
>>
>> They don't know about death, so they're not afraid of it.
>
>This could be disputed.

Only if you can explain how you think they could possibly learn about
it. We raised and killed pigs and chickens for years, and killed them right
in front of each other, and none of them ever learned to be afraid of
death even after seeing it happen to their siblings and offspring, so you
will really need to come up with a good one before I'll believe animals who
have never even seen it somehow know to fear death.

>At any rate, the fact remains that death harms them.

As yet we don't know exactly what that "harm" is. They are not being
cheated out of life because they are raised for food, as your accusation
suggests to me. So far exactly WHY it's wrong has yet to be explained.

>We discussed earlier the case of raising humans and killing them
>for food. Let us suppose that these humans were intellectually
>impaired, and didn't know what death was. Would this mean that it was
>acceptable to raise and kill them for food?

Not to me. To me it would be better to raise and eat animals, in large
part because they could be provided with better lives.

>> They just
>> become afraid of new conditions in general, or if someone hurts them
>> or something. If people would be considerate, there's no reason why
>> their deaths should be overly frightening or painful. I take all of that into
>> consideration when I suggest the decent lives that the Goos amusingly
>> get away with saying I don't consider.

****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant homo
cracker in Buford, GA, lied:

> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant cracker in
>>Buford, GA, lied:
>>
>>
>>>On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>>>>>>killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
>>>>>going on??????
>>>>
>>>>Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
>>>>the offing.
>>>
>>>
>>> They don't know about death,
>>
>>Prove it, ****wit.
>
>
> They are born not knowing

Prove it, ****wit.

dh@. wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2006 02:38:09 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
> >> >> >killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
> >> >> going on??????
> >> >
> >> >Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
> >> >the offing.
> >>
> >> They don't know about death, so they're not afraid of it.
> >
> >This could be disputed.
>
> Only if you can explain how you think they could possibly learn about
> it. We raised and killed pigs and chickens for years, and killed them right
> in front of each other, and none of them ever learned to be afraid of
> death even after seeing it happen to their siblings and offspring, so you
> will really need to come up with a good one before I'll believe animals who
> have never even seen it somehow know to fear death.
>
> >At any rate, the fact remains that death harms them.
>
> As yet we don't know exactly what that "harm" is. They are not being
> cheated out of life because they are raised for food, as your accusation
> suggests to me. So far exactly WHY it's wrong has yet to be explained.
>

Of course death harms them. If we raised and killed humans for food, we
would be harming them by killing them. It's the same with animals.

> >We discussed earlier the case of raising humans and killing them
> >for food. Let us suppose that these humans were intellectually
> >impaired, and didn't know what death was. Would this mean that it was
> >acceptable to raise and kill them for food?
>
> Not to me. To me it would be better to raise and eat animals, in large
> part because they could be provided with better lives.
>

I don't see any particular evidence for that. Is that the only reason
you can come up with?

> >> They just
> >> become afraid of new conditions in general, or if someone hurts them
> >> or something. If people would be considerate, there's no reason why
> >> their deaths should be overly frightening or painful. I take all of that into
> >> consideration when I suggest the decent lives that the Goos amusingly
> >> get away with saying I don't consider.

On 19 Feb 2006 14:57:15 -0800, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 19 Feb 2006 02:38:09 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>> >> >> >killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
>> >> >> going on??????
>> >> >
>> >> >Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
>> >> >the offing.
>> >>
>> >> They don't know about death, so they're not afraid of it.
>> >
>> >This could be disputed.
>>
>> Only if you can explain how you think they could possibly learn about
>> it. We raised and killed pigs and chickens for years, and killed them right
>> in front of each other, and none of them ever learned to be afraid of
>> death even after seeing it happen to their siblings and offspring, so you
>> will really need to come up with a good one before I'll believe animals who
>> have never even seen it somehow know to fear death.
>>
>> >At any rate, the fact remains that death harms them.
>>
>> As yet we don't know exactly what that "harm" is. They are not being
>> cheated out of life because they are raised for food, as your accusation
>> suggests to me. So far exactly WHY it's wrong has yet to be explained.
>>
>
>Of course death harms them. If we raised and killed humans for food, we
>would be harming them by killing them.

Whatever you are saying is the harm, it is NOT that it would cheat them
out of life. Instead they would experience whatever life they did experience
--good OR bad!--as a result of it.

>It's the same with animals.

Yes.

>> >We discussed earlier the case of raising humans and killing them
>> >for food. Let us suppose that these humans were intellectually
>> >impaired, and didn't know what death was. Would this mean that it was
>> >acceptable to raise and kill them for food?
>>
>> Not to me. To me it would be better to raise and eat animals, in large
>> part because they could be provided with better lives.
>>
>
>I don't see any particular evidence for that.

I do. They don't require as much in order to be healthy and content.
How could you overlook that?

>Is that the only reason
>you can come up with?

Humans grow too slowly. They require too much care for too long
while young. They take too long to reach the age where they can
reproduce. Those are other reasons. There are more, but that is more
than enough right there for me to promote raising animals for food over
raising humans.

>> >> They just
>> >> become afraid of new conditions in general, or if someone hurts them
>> >> or something. If people would be considerate, there's no reason why
>> >> their deaths should be overly frightening or painful. I take all of that into
>> >> consideration when I suggest the decent lives that the Goos amusingly
>> >> get away with saying I don't consider.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:51:25 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant homo
>cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant cracker in
>>>Buford, GA, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 15 Feb 2006 15:26:33 -0800, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrison, pig-****ing ignorant cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 14 Feb 2006 15:53:34 -0800, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Okay, well we can't ask the animals whether they don't mind being
>>>>>>>killed. A lot of them make efforts to resist, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think they resist? How do you think they know what's
>>>>>>going on??????
>>>>>
>>>>>Animals led to the slaughter sometimes become aware that danger is in
>>>>>the offing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They don't know about death,
>>>
>>>Prove it, ****wit.
>>
>>
>> They are born not knowing
>
>Prove it, ****wit.

There's no way they could know Goo, because they've had no
contact with it. When they do have contact with it, they still don't
understand because they've never been exposed to a way of
learning about death. You poor, ignorant, inept Goober.