>I am not an extremist about it, and
>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>
>Message-ID: >

What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?

dh@. wrote:
> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >
> >Message-ID: >
>
> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?



I'd kick Goober's ass some more.........but that's just me.;o)

****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
cracker, stupidly blurted out:

>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>
>>Message-ID: >
>
>
> What would you do?

You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
> cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>
> >>I am not an extremist about it, and
> >>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >>
> >>Message-ID: >
> >
> >
> > What would you do?
>
> You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
> their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
> about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
> is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
> that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.


Not necessarily Goober.

He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.

Don't you know *anything*?

dh@. wrote:
> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >
> >Message-ID: >
>
> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?

Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
render quality of life unacceptably low. I'd have thought that was
the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
the lives are of positive or negative value.

impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>>
>>
>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>>
>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>
>>>
>>> What would you do?
>>
>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
>
>
> He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
> putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.

You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?

The HIV is getting to your pea brain, ronnnnnnnnnnie.

Dave wrote:

> dh@. wrote:
>
>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>
>>>Message-ID: >
>>
>> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
>
>
> Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
> render quality of life unacceptably low. I'd have thought that was
> the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
> the lives are of positive or negative value.

He DOESN'T care. This has been starkly true for a long
time, but this unearthed quote makes it inescapable:
****wit DOESN'T CARE about the quality of life for
livestock animals, and he never has. ALL ****wit cares
about is ensuring a supply of "meat and gravy" for himself.

By the way, when a cracker like ****wit talks about
"gravy", he doesn't mean a delicious, rich, savory
sauce made from the pan drippings of a properly roasted
piece of meat. "Gravy", to Georgia crackers (and hicks
and hillbillies throughout the south), is a thick,
insipid paste made from sausage or bacon fat (strained,
so there are no tasty bits of meat in it), to which a
few tablespoons of flour have been added, then a couple
of cups of milk. It has the consistency of, and looks
exactly like, wallpaper paste. There are usually lumps
of flour in it. It's just nasty.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> stupidly blabbered:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
> >>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
> >>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >>>>
> >>>>Message-ID: >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What would you do?
> >>
> >>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
> >>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
> >>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
> >>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
> >>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
> >
> >
> > He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
> > putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
>
> You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
> he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?


How do you know that for a fact Goober?


Did he say he would eat meat even if it were to kill him?

Is this another deal like your PET FOOD nonsense?





>
> The HIV is getting to your pea brain, ronnnnnnnnnnie.

impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you do?
>>>>
>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
>>>
>>>
>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
>>
>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
>
>
>
> How do you know that for a fact

He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.

impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would you do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
>>>>
>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>How do you know that for a fact
>>
>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
>
>
>
>
> No. No he didn't

He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
would still eat meat.

He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
has been saying for all these years that he cares about
cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
knew the animals led terrible lives.

As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
the world, a company that has acquired several large
U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> stupidly blabbered:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>stupidly blabbered:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
> >>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
> >>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What would you do?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
> >>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
> >>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
> >>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
> >>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
> >>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
> >>>>
> >>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
> >>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How do you know that for a fact
> >>
> >>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No. No he didn't
>
> He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
>
> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> would still eat meat.
>
> He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
> impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
> has been saying for all these years that he cares about
> cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
> at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
> knew the animals led terrible lives.


I ****in' *KNOW* that Goober.

What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
convinced that it is a danger to his own health.

So far he has not stated any position regarding the eating of
putrifying flesh vis a vis his OWN health.......yet you like the mental
basket case that you are, keep insisting that he did.





>
> As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
> consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
> the world, a company that has acquired several large
> U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
> knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
> the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
> markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
> there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
> They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
> quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
> ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
> causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.


Goo.......I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
and cared for, for a period of TWELVE YEARS only to become PET FOOD and
you replied "yes".


Now you are trying to spin your way out of it.

LOL!!

Yer so funny Goo when you're trying to squirm out of something.

impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
>>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would you do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
>>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
>>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
>>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
>>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
>>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
>>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you know that for a fact
>>>>
>>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No. No he didn't
>>
>>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
>>
>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>> would still eat meat.
>>
>>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
>>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
>>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
>>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
>>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
>>knew the animals led terrible lives.
>
>
>
> I ****in' *KNOW* that.

Debatable.


>
> What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
> convinced that it is a danger to his own health.

Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
habits are fixed.


>
>>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
>>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
>>the world, a company that has acquired several large
>>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
>>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
>>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
>>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
>>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
>> They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
>>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
>>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
>>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
>
>
>
> I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,

Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
*specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
That's all that matters.

Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> stupidly blabbered:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>stupidly blabbered:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
> >>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
> >>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What would you do?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
> >>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
> >>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
> >>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
> >>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
> >>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
> >>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How do you know that for a fact
> >>>>
> >>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No. No he didn't
> >>
> >>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
> >>
> >> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> >> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >> would still eat meat.
> >>
> >>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
> >>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
> >>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
> >>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
> >>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
> >>knew the animals led terrible lives.
> >
> >
> >
> > I ****in' *KNOW* that.
>
> Debatable.
>
>
> >
> > What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
> > convinced that it is a danger to his own health.
>
> Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
> habits are fixed.
>
>
> >
> >>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
> >>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
> >>the world, a company that has acquired several large
> >>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
> >>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
> >>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
> >>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
> >>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
> >> They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
> >>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
> >>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
> >>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
> >
> >
> >
> > I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
>
> Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
> ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
> supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
> are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
> *specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
> irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
> That's all that matters.
>
> Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
> Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.



From: Goo
Message-ID: et>

Ron asked:



So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into
existance and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the
lowest price in the beef industry......and all that done with the
singular purpose of supplying the pet food industry?


Goo replied:

Yes.

ronnnnnnnnnnie - don't you get tired of me beating your
****ing head in?



impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
>>>>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What would you do?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
>>>>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
>>>>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
>>>>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
>>>>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
>>>>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
>>>>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How do you know that for a fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No. No he didn't
>>>>
>>>>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
>>>>
>>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
>>>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>> would still eat meat.
>>>>
>>>>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
>>>>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
>>>>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
>>>>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
>>>>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
>>>>knew the animals led terrible lives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I ****in' *KNOW* that.
>>
>>Debatable.
>>
>>
>>
>>>What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
>>>convinced that it is a danger to his own health.
>>
>>Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
>>habits are fixed.

Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie.


>>>>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
>>>>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
>>>>the world, a company that has acquired several large
>>>>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
>>>>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
>>>>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
>>>>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
>>>>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
>>>> They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
>>>>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
>>>>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
>>
>>Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
>>ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
>>supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
>>are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
>>*specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
>>irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
>>That's all that matters.
>>
>>Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
>>Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.
>
>
>
>
> From:

ronnnnnnnnnnnie: pet food companies buy meat in the
commodities market. That is part of demand for meat,
and has a direct relationship to the number of livetock
animals produced. DEAL with it, ronnnnnnnnnnnie. The
best way for you to deal with it is to shut your
****ing ignorant yap, and go back to blowing ****wit.

You ****ing impotent, no-fight, limp-wristed queer.
You contemptible little punk.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> ronnnnnnnnnnie - don't you get tired of me beating your
> ****ing head in?
>
>
>
> impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> stupidly blabbered:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>stupidly blabbered:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
> >>>>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>What would you do?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
> >>>>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
> >>>>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
> >>>>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
> >>>>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
> >>>>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>How do you know that for a fact
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No. No he didn't
> >>>>
> >>>>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> >>>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>> would still eat meat.
> >>>>
> >>>>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
> >>>>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
> >>>>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
> >>>>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
> >>>>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
> >>>>knew the animals led terrible lives.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I ****in' *KNOW* that.
> >>
> >>Debatable.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
> >>>convinced that it is a danger to his own health.
> >>
> >>Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
> >>habits are fixed.
>
> Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie.
>
>
> >>>>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
> >>>>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
> >>>>the world, a company that has acquired several large
> >>>>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
> >>>>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
> >>>>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
> >>>>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
> >>>>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
> >>>> They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
> >>>>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
> >>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
> >>>>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
> >>
> >>Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
> >>ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
> >>supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
> >>are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
> >>*specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
> >>irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
> >>That's all that matters.
> >>
> >>Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
> >>Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> ronnnnnnnnnnnie: pet food companies buy meat in the
> commodities market. That is part of demand for meat,
> and has a direct relationship to the number of livetock
> animals produced. DEAL with it, ronnnnnnnnnnnie. The
> best way for you to deal with it is to shut your
> ****ing ignorant yap, and go back to blowing ****wit.
>
> You ****ing impotent, no-fight, limp-wristed queer.
> You contemptible little punk.


Getting a bit overwrought aren't you Goo?

Going to fall off your chair and ~plop~ onto the floor?....


~plop~

RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>ronnnnnnnnnnie - don't you get tired of me beating your
>>****ing head in?
>>
>>
>>
>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
>>>>>>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What would you do?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
>>>>>>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
>>>>>>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
>>>>>>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How do you know that for a fact
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No. No he didn't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
>>>>>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>> would still eat meat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
>>>>>>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
>>>>>>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
>>>>>>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
>>>>>>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
>>>>>>knew the animals led terrible lives.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I ****in' *KNOW* that.
>>>>
>>>>Debatable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
>>>>>convinced that it is a danger to his own health.
>>>>
>>>>Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
>>>>habits are fixed.
>>
>>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
>>>>>>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
>>>>>>the world, a company that has acquired several large
>>>>>>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
>>>>>>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
>>>>>>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
>>>>>>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
>>>>>>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
>>>>>>They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
>>>>>>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
>>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
>>>>>>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
>>>>
>>>>Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
>>>>supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
>>>>are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
>>>>*specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
>>>>irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
>>>>That's all that matters.
>>>>
>>>>Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
>>>>Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From:
>>
>>ronnnnnnnnnnnie: pet food companies buy meat in the
>>commodities market. That is part of demand for meat,
>>and has a direct relationship to the number of livetock
>>animals produced. DEAL with it, ronnnnnnnnnnnie. The
>>best way for you to deal with it is to shut your
>>****ing ignorant yap, and go back to blowing ****wit.
>>
>>You ****ing impotent, no-fight, limp-wristed queer.
>>You contemptible little punk.
>
>
>
> Getting a bit overwrought aren't you?
>
> Going to fall off your chair and ~plop~ onto the floor?....
>
>
> ~plop~

Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie. You ****ing zero.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
> ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>ronnnnnnnnnnie - don't you get tired of me beating your
> >>****ing head in?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>stupidly blabbered:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>What would you do?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
> >>>>>>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
> >>>>>>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
> >>>>>>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>How do you know that for a fact
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No. No he didn't
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> >>>>>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>>>> would still eat meat.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
> >>>>>>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
> >>>>>>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
> >>>>>>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
> >>>>>>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
> >>>>>>knew the animals led terrible lives.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I ****in' *KNOW* that.
> >>>>
> >>>>Debatable.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
> >>>>>convinced that it is a danger to his own health.
> >>>>
> >>>>Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
> >>>>habits are fixed.
> >>
> >>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
> >>>>>>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
> >>>>>>the world, a company that has acquired several large
> >>>>>>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
> >>>>>>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
> >>>>>>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
> >>>>>>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
> >>>>>>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
> >>>>>>They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
> >>>>>>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
> >>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
> >>>>>>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
> >>>>
> >>>>Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
> >>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
> >>>>supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
> >>>>are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
> >>>>*specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
> >>>>irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
> >>>>That's all that matters.
> >>>>
> >>>>Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
> >>>>Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>From:
> >>
> >>ronnnnnnnnnnnie: pet food companies buy meat in the
> >>commodities market. That is part of demand for meat,
> >>and has a direct relationship to the number of livetock
> >>animals produced. DEAL with it, ronnnnnnnnnnnie. The
> >>best way for you to deal with it is to shut your
> >>****ing ignorant yap, and go back to blowing ****wit.
> >>
> >>You ****ing impotent, no-fight, limp-wristed queer.
> >>You contemptible little punk.
> >
> >
> >
> > Getting a bit overwrought aren't you?
> >
> > Going to fall off your chair and ~plop~ onto the floor?....
> >
> >
> > ~plop~
>
> Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie. You ****ing zero.


From: Goo
Message-ID: et>

Ron asked:


So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into
existance and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the
lowest price in the beef industry......and all that done with the
singular purpose of supplying the pet food industry?


Goo replied:


Yes.

RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
>>ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
>>ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie - don't you get tired of me beating your
>>>>****ing head in?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What would you do?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
>>>>>>>>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>How do you know that for a fact
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No. No he didn't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
>>>>>>>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>>> would still eat meat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
>>>>>>>>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
>>>>>>>>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
>>>>>>>>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
>>>>>>>>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
>>>>>>>>knew the animals led terrible lives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I ****in' *KNOW* that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Debatable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
>>>>>>>convinced that it is a danger to his own health.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
>>>>>>habits are fixed.
>>>>
>>>>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
>>>>>>>>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
>>>>>>>>the world, a company that has acquired several large
>>>>>>>>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
>>>>>>>>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
>>>>>>>>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
>>>>>>>>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
>>>>>>>>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
>>>>>>>>They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
>>>>>>>>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
>>>>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
>>>>>>>>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
>>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
>>>>>>supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
>>>>>>are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
>>>>>>*specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
>>>>>>irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
>>>>>>That's all that matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
>>>>>>Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>From:
>>>>
>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnnie: pet food companies buy meat in the
>>>>commodities market. That is part of demand for meat,
>>>>and has a direct relationship to the number of livetock
>>>>animals produced. DEAL with it, ronnnnnnnnnnnie. The
>>>>best way for you to deal with it is to shut your
>>>>****ing ignorant yap, and go back to blowing ****wit.
>>>>
>>>>You ****ing impotent, no-fight, limp-wristed queer.
>>>>You contemptible little punk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Getting a bit overwrought aren't you?
>>>
>>>Going to fall off your chair and ~plop~ onto the floor?....
>>>
>>>
>>>~plop~
>>
>>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie. You ****ing zero.
>
>
>
> From:

Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnie.

You ****ing impotent homo.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
> >>ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
> >>ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie - don't you get tired of me beating your
> >>>>****ing head in?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> >>>>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What would you do?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
> >>>>>>>>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>How do you know that for a fact
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>No. No he didn't
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> >>>>>>>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >>>>>>>> would still eat meat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
> >>>>>>>>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
> >>>>>>>>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
> >>>>>>>>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
> >>>>>>>>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
> >>>>>>>>knew the animals led terrible lives.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I ****in' *KNOW* that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Debatable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
> >>>>>>>convinced that it is a danger to his own health.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
> >>>>>>habits are fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
> >>>>>>>>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
> >>>>>>>>the world, a company that has acquired several large
> >>>>>>>>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
> >>>>>>>>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
> >>>>>>>>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
> >>>>>>>>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
> >>>>>>>>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
> >>>>>>>>They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
> >>>>>>>>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
> >>>>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
> >>>>>>>>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
> >>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
> >>>>>>supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
> >>>>>>are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
> >>>>>>*specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
> >>>>>>irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
> >>>>>>That's all that matters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
> >>>>>>Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>From:
> >>>>
> >>>>ronnnnnnnnnnnie: pet food companies buy meat in the
> >>>>commodities market. That is part of demand for meat,
> >>>>and has a direct relationship to the number of livetock
> >>>>animals produced. DEAL with it, ronnnnnnnnnnnie. The
> >>>>best way for you to deal with it is to shut your
> >>>>****ing ignorant yap, and go back to blowing ****wit.
> >>>>
> >>>>You ****ing impotent, no-fight, limp-wristed queer.
> >>>>You contemptible little punk.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Getting a bit overwrought aren't you?
> >>>
> >>>Going to fall off your chair and ~plop~ onto the floor?....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>~plop~
> >>
> >>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie. You ****ing zero.
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnie.
>
> You ****ing impotent homo.






From: Goo
Message-ID: et>

Ron asked:


So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into
existance and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the
lowest price in the beef industry......and all that done with the
singular purpose of supplying the pet food industry?


Goo replied:


Yes.




Squirm around some more Goober. It's lookin' good on ya!

ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid ineffectual homo: why do
you change your nym every 10 minutes...in the SAME
****ING THREAD?


RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
>>ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>RIGHT on cue, impotent fudgepacker homo liar
>>>>ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton stupidly blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie - don't you get tired of me beating your
>>>>>>****ing head in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What would you do?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>How do you know that for a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No. No he didn't
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
>>>>>>>>>> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>>>>>>>>>> would still eat meat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
>>>>>>>>>>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
>>>>>>>>>>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
>>>>>>>>>>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
>>>>>>>>>>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
>>>>>>>>>>knew the animals led terrible lives.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I ****in' *KNOW* that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Debatable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
>>>>>>>>>convinced that it is a danger to his own health.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
>>>>>>>>habits are fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
>>>>>>>>>>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
>>>>>>>>>>the world, a company that has acquired several large
>>>>>>>>>>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
>>>>>>>>>>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
>>>>>>>>>>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
>>>>>>>>>>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
>>>>>>>>>>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
>>>>>>>>>>They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
>>>>>>>>>>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
>>>>>>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
>>>>>>>>>>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
>>>>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
>>>>>>>>supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
>>>>>>>>are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
>>>>>>>>*specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
>>>>>>>>irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
>>>>>>>>That's all that matters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
>>>>>>>>Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>From:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ronnnnnnnnnnnie: pet food companies buy meat in the
>>>>>>commodities market. That is part of demand for meat,
>>>>>>and has a direct relationship to the number of livetock
>>>>>>animals produced. DEAL with it, ronnnnnnnnnnnie. The
>>>>>>best way for you to deal with it is to shut your
>>>>>>****ing ignorant yap, and go back to blowing ****wit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You ****ing impotent, no-fight, limp-wristed queer.
>>>>>>You contemptible little punk.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Getting a bit overwrought aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Going to fall off your chair and ~plop~ onto the floor?....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>~plop~
>>>>
>>>>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnnnie. You ****ing zero.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From:
>>
>>Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnie.
>>
>>You ****ing impotent homo.
>
>
> From:

Nice concession, ronnnnnnnnnnie.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 our stupid, ignorant Goober wrote:

>He DOESN'T care.

· Again you have shown that *incredibly!* you are STILL somehow
too stupid to understand that there are different meanings for the
word "life", Goober:
__________________________________________________ _______
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You were too stupid to understand it when I explained to you in
the past:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: .net>

dh wrote:
> I've pointed out that your beloved life per se, and
> the individual lives of animals are completely different things.

You are wrong
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and you have again proven that you're still too stupid to understand it
even now....even when the difference is pointed out to you directly!:

"Though life itself is a necessary benefit for all beings, the individual life
experiences of the animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal" - dh

You are just too stupid and inept a Goober to understand. Since you
can't even understand something as easy as this, it's no wonder you
believe some of the other stupid things you do. Stupidity really does
explain a lot about you as an individual, Goo. ·

On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> >I am not an extremist about it, and
>> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>> >
>> >Message-ID: >
>>
>> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
>
>Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
>render quality of life unacceptably low.

In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
eggs. And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.

>I'd have thought that was
>the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
>the lives are of positive or negative value.

I consider their lives. Why don't you?

dh@. wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >> >
> >> >Message-ID: >
> >>
> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
> >
> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
>
> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
> eggs.

Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
What about free range eggs?

> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
>
> >I'd have thought that was
> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
>
> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
>> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>> >> >
>> >> >Message-ID: >
>> >>
>> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
>> >
>> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
>> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
>>
>> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
>> eggs.
>
>Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
>products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?

I'm opposed to the battery method, but in favor of the open
house method.

>What about free range eggs?

I'm in favor of them too.

>> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
>> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
>>
>> >I'd have thought that was
>> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
>> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
>>
>> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

dh@. wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Message-ID: >
> >> >>
> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
> >> >
> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
> >>
> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
> >> eggs.
> >
> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
>
> I'm opposed to the battery method,

WHY, ****wit? You wrote: "I would just ignore their suffering." Why
do you LIE and say you're "opposed to the battery method"? You DON'T
CARE, ****wit.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >dh@. wrote:
> > >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >dh@. wrote:
> > >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> > >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> > >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> > >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Message-ID: >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
> > >> >
> > >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
> > >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
> > >>
> > >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
> > >> eggs.
> > >
> > >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
> > >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
> >
> > I'm opposed to the battery method,
>
> WHY, ****wit? You wrote: "I would just ignore their suffering." Why
> do you LIE and say you're "opposed to the battery method"? You DON'T
> CARE, ****wit.



Do you have jiggers again Goo?

Did they eat your brain?

On 28 Mar 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
>> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Message-ID: >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
>> >> >
>> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
>> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
>> >>
>> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
>> >> eggs.
>> >
>> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
>> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
>>
>> I'm opposed to the battery method,
>
>WHY, ****wit? You wrote: "I would just ignore their suffering."

I said I "would" Goo, not that I do. You poor fool.

dh@. wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Message-ID: >
> >> >>
> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
> >> >
> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
> >>
> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
> >> eggs.
> >
> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
>
> I'm opposed to the battery method, but in favor of the open
> house method.

Do you eat eggs that result from the battery method and if
so, why?

> >What about free range eggs?
>
> I'm in favor of them too.
>
> >> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
> >> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
> >>
> >> >I'd have thought that was
> >> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
> >> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
> >>
> >> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

On 30 Mar 2006 06:25:13 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
>> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Message-ID: >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
>> >> >
>> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
>> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
>> >>
>> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
>> >> eggs.
>> >
>> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
>> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
>>
>> I'm opposed to the battery method, but in favor of the open
>> house method.
>
>Do you eat eggs that result from the battery method

If that's all there is at the time. I buy cage free though. Do you?

>and if
>so, why?

Because I'm aware that eating battery eggs myself will make
absolutely no difference to any chicken anywhere. Neither will
buying cage free, but I still contribute to that method because
I want to contribute to that type environment for laying hens.

>> >What about free range eggs?
>>
>> I'm in favor of them too.
>>
>> >> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
>> >> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
>> >>
>> >> >I'd have thought that was
>> >> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
>> >> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
>> >>
>> >> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

dh@. wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2006 06:25:13 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> >> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Message-ID: >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
> >> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
> >> >>
> >> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
> >> >> eggs.
> >> >
> >> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
> >> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
> >>
> >> I'm opposed to the battery method, but in favor of the open
> >> house method.
> >
> >Do you eat eggs that result from the battery method
>
> If that's all there is at the time. I buy cage free though. Do you?

On the rare occasions when I deliberately consume eggs I always
make sure they are labelled as free range, organic.
>
> >and if
> >so, why?
>
> Because I'm aware that eating battery eggs myself will make
> absolutely no difference to any chicken anywhere. Neither will
> buying cage free, but I still contribute to that method because
> I want to contribute to that type environment for laying hens.

I understand where you are coming from but I am also aware that
if everyone who was opposed to the battery industry eggs refused to
eat them then the impact on the industry would be huge. I find it
disappointing that so many of these people use the excuse that
they make neglibale difference as an individual consumer.

> >> >What about free range eggs?
> >>
> >> I'm in favor of them too.
> >>
> >> >> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
> >> >> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
> >> >>
> >> >> >I'd have thought that was
> >> >> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
> >> >> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
> >> >>
> >> >> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

On 2 Apr 2006 15:20:25 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 30 Mar 2006 06:25:13 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
>> >> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>> >> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>> >> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Message-ID: >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
>> >> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
>> >> >> eggs.
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
>> >> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
>> >>
>> >> I'm opposed to the battery method, but in favor of the open
>> >> house method.
>> >
>> >Do you eat eggs that result from the battery method
>>
>> If that's all there is at the time. I buy cage free though. Do you?
>
>On the rare occasions when I deliberately consume eggs I always
>make sure they are labelled as free range, organic.

Of course that's very hard to believe, but if you were to actually
spend the extra money, why *would* you do it other than to contribute
to decent lives for laying hens? That's the only reason I do it. If all I
cared about was getting eggs I wouldn't spend extra money to
contribute to decent lives for laying hens, but I do.

>> >and if
>> >so, why?
>>
>> Because I'm aware that eating battery eggs myself will make
>> absolutely no difference to any chicken anywhere. Neither will
>> buying cage free, but I still contribute to that method because
>> I want to contribute to that type environment for laying hens.
>
>I understand where you are coming from but I am also aware that
>if everyone who was opposed to the battery industry eggs refused to
>eat them then the impact on the industry would be huge. I find it
>disappointing that so many of these people use the excuse that
>they make neglibale difference as an individual consumer.

To me that seems very inconsistent for a person who up until
now--and almost certainly in the near future--opposes the idea
of contributing to life for any type(s) of livestock over those of
potential wildlife.

>> >> >What about free range eggs?
>> >>
>> >> I'm in favor of them too.
>> >>
>> >> >> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
>> >> >> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I'd have thought that was
>> >> >> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
>> >> >> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

dh@. wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2006 15:20:25 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 30 Mar 2006 06:25:13 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> >> >> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >> >> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >> >> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Message-ID: >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
> >> >> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
> >> >> >> eggs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
> >> >> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm opposed to the battery method, but in favor of the open
> >> >> house method.
> >> >
> >> >Do you eat eggs that result from the battery method
> >>
> >> If that's all there is at the time. I buy cage free though. Do you?
> >
> >On the rare occasions when I deliberately consume eggs I always
> >make sure they are labelled as free range, organic.
>
> Of course that's very hard to believe, but if you were to actually
> spend the extra money, why *would* you do it other than to contribute
> to decent lives for laying hens?

If I buy eggs it is because I want to eat eggs, not because I want to
contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.

> That's the only reason I do it. If all I
> cared about was getting eggs I wouldn't spend extra money to
> contribute to decent lives for laying hens, but I do.
>
> >> >and if
> >> >so, why?
> >>
> >> Because I'm aware that eating battery eggs myself will make
> >> absolutely no difference to any chicken anywhere. Neither will
> >> buying cage free, but I still contribute to that method because
> >> I want to contribute to that type environment for laying hens.
> >
> >I understand where you are coming from but I am also aware that
> >if everyone who was opposed to the battery industry eggs refused to
> >eat them then the impact on the industry would be huge. I find it
> >disappointing that so many of these people use the excuse that
> >they make neglibale difference as an individual consumer.
>
> To me that seems very inconsistent for a person who up until
> now--and almost certainly in the near future--opposes the idea
> of contributing to life for any type(s) of livestock over those of
> potential wildlife.

What I oppose is giving consideration to *potential* livestock but not
to potential wildlife. How is this inconsistent with opposing the
battery chicken industry?

> >> >> >What about free range eggs?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm in favor of them too.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
> >> >> >> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >I'd have thought that was
> >> >> >> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
> >> >> >> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2006 15:20:25 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 30 Mar 2006 06:25:13 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
>> >> >> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
>> >> >> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
>> >> >> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Message-ID: >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
>> >> >> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
>> >> >> >> eggs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
>> >> >> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm opposed to the battery method, but in favor of the open
>> >> >> house method.
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you eat eggs that result from the battery method
>> >>
>> >> If that's all there is at the time. I buy cage free though. Do you?
>> >
>> >On the rare occasions when I deliberately consume eggs I always
>> >make sure they are labelled as free range, organic.
>>
>> Of course that's very hard to believe, but if you were to actually
>> spend the extra money, why *would* you do it other than to contribute
>> to decent lives for laying hens?
>
>If I buy eggs it is because I want to eat eggs,

I didn't ask you why you buy eggs. I asked you why you *would*
spend the EXTRA money on free range eggs, when you don't have
any interest in promoting life for free range chickens.

>not because I want to
>contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
>am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.

Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
unlikely and absurd to me. It would require extremely narrow thinking
for you to consider one aspect of the situation without giving any
consideration to the other. Maybe you are that narrow and shallow,
but I can't imagine it so I have doubts that you are. Unless you
really are Dutch, as I still can't help but suspect you to be....

>> That's the only reason I do it. If all I
>> cared about was getting eggs I wouldn't spend extra money to
>> contribute to decent lives for laying hens, but I do.
>>
>> >> >and if
>> >> >so, why?
>> >>
>> >> Because I'm aware that eating battery eggs myself will make
>> >> absolutely no difference to any chicken anywhere. Neither will
>> >> buying cage free, but I still contribute to that method because
>> >> I want to contribute to that type environment for laying hens.
>> >
>> >I understand where you are coming from but I am also aware that
>> >if everyone who was opposed to the battery industry eggs refused to
>> >eat them then the impact on the industry would be huge. I find it
>> >disappointing that so many of these people use the excuse that
>> >they make neglibale difference as an individual consumer.
>>
>> To me that seems very inconsistent for a person who up until
>> now--and almost certainly in the near future--opposes the idea
>> of contributing to life for any type(s) of livestock over those of
>> potential wildlife.
>
>What I oppose is giving consideration to *potential* livestock

You have proven that without question! More than once.

>but not to potential wildlife.

You are opposed to giving potential livestock any consideration,
while you insist we consider potential wildlife even though you
amusingly/pathetically refuse to tell us which potential wildlife you
think we should try to consider.

>How is this inconsistent with opposing the battery chicken industry?

You're being inconsistent by pretending to consider the chickens'
lives all of a sudden, when we know you only consider the lives
of wildlife but never those of livestock, *including* those of free range
chickens. It seems you should have been able to figure that out for
yourself, but the sad truth is that you'll probably never be able to
understand it at all.

>> >> >> >What about free range eggs?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm in favor of them too.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
>> >> >> >> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >I'd have thought that was
>> >> >> >> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
>> >> >> >> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

dh@. wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 2 Apr 2006 15:20:25 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 30 Mar 2006 06:25:13 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 28 Mar 2006 05:48:48 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 25 Mar 2006 14:59:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >I am not an extremist about it, and
> >> >> >> >> >> >if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> >> >> >> >> >> >would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> >> >> >> >> >> >about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >Message-ID: >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> What would you do? Goo? Ingred? Anyone?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Refuse to eat any animals that I believe are raised in ways that
> >> >> >> >> >render quality of life unacceptably low.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In that case I'd have to avoid almost everything made with
> >> >> >> >> eggs.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Do you consider that the pleasure you get from eating such
> >> >> >> >products justifies the suffering inflicted on the chickens?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm opposed to the battery method, but in favor of the open
> >> >> >> house method.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do you eat eggs that result from the battery method
> >> >>
> >> >> If that's all there is at the time. I buy cage free though. Do you?
> >> >
> >> >On the rare occasions when I deliberately consume eggs I always
> >> >make sure they are labelled as free range, organic.
> >>
> >> Of course that's very hard to believe, but if you were to actually
> >> spend the extra money, why *would* you do it other than to contribute
> >> to decent lives for laying hens?
> >
> >If I buy eggs it is because I want to eat eggs,
>
> I didn't ask you why you buy eggs. I asked you why you *would*
> spend the EXTRA money on free range eggs, when you don't have
> any interest in promoting life for free range chickens.

Because I have ethical objections to the cheap alternatives.
>
> >not because I want to
> >contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
> >am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.
>
> Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
> range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
> battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
> unlikely and absurd to me.

I pay the extra money because I want future generations of animals
to have decent lives. I don't buy eggs unless I want to eat eggs
because
I don't care whether the aforementioned future generations are chickens
or not.

> It would require extremely narrow thinking
> for you to consider one aspect of the situation without giving any
> consideration to the other. Maybe you are that narrow and shallow,
> but I can't imagine it so I have doubts that you are. Unless you
> really are Dutch, as I still can't help but suspect you to be....
>
> >> That's the only reason I do it. If all I
> >> cared about was getting eggs I wouldn't spend extra money to
> >> contribute to decent lives for laying hens, but I do.
> >>
> >> >> >and if
> >> >> >so, why?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because I'm aware that eating battery eggs myself will make
> >> >> absolutely no difference to any chicken anywhere. Neither will
> >> >> buying cage free, but I still contribute to that method because
> >> >> I want to contribute to that type environment for laying hens.
> >> >
> >> >I understand where you are coming from but I am also aware that
> >> >if everyone who was opposed to the battery industry eggs refused to
> >> >eat them then the impact on the industry would be huge. I find it
> >> >disappointing that so many of these people use the excuse that
> >> >they make neglibale difference as an individual consumer.
> >>
> >> To me that seems very inconsistent for a person who up until
> >> now--and almost certainly in the near future--opposes the idea
> >> of contributing to life for any type(s) of livestock over those of
> >> potential wildlife.
> >
> >What I oppose is giving consideration to *potential* livestock
> >but not to potential wildlife.
>
> You have proven that without question! More than once.

Correct.

> You are opposed to giving potential livestock any consideration,

Incorrect.

> while you insist we consider potential wildlife even though you
> amusingly/pathetically refuse to tell us which potential wildlife you
> think we should try to consider.

Any.

> >How is this inconsistent with opposing the battery chicken industry?
>
> You're being inconsistent by pretending to consider the chickens'
> lives all of a sudden, when we know you only consider the lives
> of wildlife but never those of livestock,

How do we "know" that?

>*including* those of free range
> chickens. It seems you should have been able to figure that out for
> yourself, but the sad truth is that you'll probably never be able to
> understand it at all.
>
> >> >> >> >What about free range eggs?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm in favor of them too.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And possibly pork, but so far I still don't know enough
> >> >> >> >> about how pork is produced to form an opinion about it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >I'd have thought that was
> >> >> >> >> >the only rational answer for someone who claims to care whether
> >> >> >> >> >the lives are of positive or negative value.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I consider their lives. Why don't you?

On 5 Apr 2006 18:40:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>> >not because I want to
>> >contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
>> >am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.
>>
>> Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
>> range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
>> battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
>> unlikely and absurd to me.
>
>I pay the extra money because I want future generations of animals
>to have decent lives.

Then it's the same thing I'm encouraging and you, and the Goos,
and the "aras" have all been opposing. And here you are claiming to
do what you oppose me for suggesting!

>I don't buy eggs unless I want to eat eggs
>because
>I don't care whether the aforementioned future generations are chickens
>or not.

So far we're having enough trouble with what you ARE doing, while
at the same time you're complaining to me for suggesting that people
do what you're spending EXTRA money to do. Even though you're
opposed to people considering the lives of livestock, you claim to be
deliberately spending EXTRA money ONLY to contribute to life for
future cage free hens. And don't try to lie to me OR yourself that
you're spending it "instead of blah blah...". You are only spending
the EXTRA money TO promote life for cage free hens, otherwise
you would NOT spend it on that. Why inf can you not understand
something as easy as this???

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:

> On 5 Apr 2006 18:40:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>
>>>On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>not because I want to
>>>>contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
>>>>am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.
>>>
>>> Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
>>>range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
>>>battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
>>>unlikely and absurd to me.
>>
>>I pay the extra money because I want future generations of animals
>>to have decent lives.
>
>
> Then it's the same thing I'm encouraging

NO, ****wit. YOU are trying to encourage life _per se_
for livestock. You DON'T CARE about their quality of life:

I don't care about them at all...I
just ignore their suffering.
****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

There's a huge difference between Dave and you,
****wit. You want the chickens to exist, period, and
don't care about their lives. Dave believes they will
exist, and IF they do, then he wants them to have
decent lives. Dave does not think there is some moral
reason for the chickens to exist.


>>I don't buy eggs unless I want to eat eggs

THERE'S the difference, ****wit. You stupidly pretend
you buy eggs to be doing something "nice" for the
chickens. Dave doesn't pretend he's doing anything
"for" the chickens; he acknowledges he buys eggs for
his own interest, not the chickens. The chickens'
lives only enter into it when he decides WHICH eggs to buy.


>>because I don't care whether the aforementioned future
>>generations are chickens or not.
>
>
> So far we're having enough trouble with what you ARE doing,

We're not having ANY trouble, ****wit, you goddamned
****ing child-molesting shitbag. Dave chooses to buy
eggs only for HIS interest, not the chickens'. He
chooses WHICH eggs to buy based on his wish to
encourage decent lives for chickens, IF they exist.

You STUPIDLY pretend to buy eggs IN THE FIRST PLACE in
order to "promote life" for chickens. That's absurd.

You are one stinking piece of shit lying cracker, ****wit.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 Goo wrote:

>You want the chickens to exist, period, and
>don't care about their lives.

· Again you have shown that *incredibly!* you are STILL somehow
too stupid to understand that there are different meanings for the
word "life", Goober:
__________________________________________________ _______
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You were too stupid to understand it when I explained to you in
the past:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: .net>

dh wrote:
> I've pointed out that your beloved life per se, and
> the individual lives of animals are completely different things.

You are wrong
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and you have again proven that you're still too stupid to understand it
even now....even when the difference is pointed out to you directly!:

"Though life itself is a necessary benefit for all beings, the individual life
experiences of the animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal" - dh

You are just too stupid and inept a Goober to understand. Since you
can't even understand something as easy as this, it's no wonder you
believe some of the other stupid things you do. Stupidity really does
explain a lot about you as an individual, Goo. ·

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:

> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>You want the chickens to exist, period, and
>>don't care about their lives.
>
>
> · Again you have shown [snip canned spew]

I have shown that you don't care about the lives of
livestock, ****wit:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999


> "Though life itself is a necessary benefit for all beings,

Life is not a "benefit" for any beings, ****wit.

dh@. wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 18:40:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >> >not because I want to
> >> >contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
> >> >am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.
> >>
> >> Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
> >> range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
> >> battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
> >> unlikely and absurd to me.
> >
> >I pay the extra money because I want future generations of animals
> >to have decent lives.
>
> Then it's the same thing I'm encouraging and you, and the Goos,
> and the "aras" have all been opposing. And here you are claiming to
> do what you oppose me for suggesting!

Where have I ever opposed the suggestion that future generations
of animals should be allowed to lead decent lives?
>
> >I don't buy eggs unless I want to eat eggs
> >because
> >I don't care whether the aforementioned future generations are chickens
> >or not.
>
> So far we're having enough trouble with what you ARE doing, while
> at the same time you're complaining to me for suggesting that people
> do what you're spending EXTRA money to do.

My problem is with your suggestion that people should pay in
order to enable future generations of animals to get to experience
being farmed.

> Even though you're opposed to people considering the lives of livestock,

The quality of life for future generations of animals deserves serious
consideration. The status (domesticated or wild) does not have the
importance you try to get us to assign it. That is why I am opposing
you.

> you claim to be
> deliberately spending EXTRA money ONLY to contribute to life for
> future cage free hens.

If I spend the money it is because I want the laying hen industry to be
compassionate towards the chickens and because it produces a product
I want to eat, not because I feel a moral obligation to enable future
generations of chickens.

1> And don't try to lie to me OR yourself that
> you're spending it "instead of blah blah...". You are only spending
> the EXTRA money TO promote life for cage free hens, otherwise
> you would NOT spend it on that. Why inf can you not understand
> something as easy as this???

On 9 Apr 2006 08:24:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2006 18:40:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >not because I want to
>> >> >contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
>> >> >am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.
>> >>
>> >> Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
>> >> range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
>> >> battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
>> >> unlikely and absurd to me.
>> >
>> >I pay the extra money because I want future generations of animals
>> >to have decent lives.
>>
>> Then it's the same thing I'm encouraging and you, and the Goos,
>> and the "aras" have all been opposing. And here you are claiming to
>> do what you oppose me for suggesting!
>
>Where have I ever opposed the suggestion that future generations
>of animals should be allowed to lead decent lives?

You oppose the suggestion that people deliberately contribute to
decent lives for livestock. Why you do it is of little or no significance,
because you do it regardless of why you do it, and regardless of why
you say that you do it.

>> >I don't buy eggs unless I want to eat eggs
>> >because
>> >I don't care whether the aforementioned future generations are chickens
>> >or not.
>>
>> So far we're having enough trouble with what you ARE doing, while
>> at the same time you're complaining to me for suggesting that people
>> do what you're spending EXTRA money to do.
>
>My problem is with your suggestion that people should pay in
>order to enable future generations of animals to get to experience
>being farmed.

I don't encourage that. Even if I did it would be stupid for someone
in favor of decent lives for livestock, to oppose the suggestion. Should
I consider that you might be that stupid? Or will you admit that you are
opposed to promoting decens lives for livestock? It has to be one or
the other:

1. You are that stupid
2. You are opposed to promoting decent lives for livestock

>> Even though you're opposed to people considering the lives of livestock,
>
>The quality of life for future generations of animals deserves serious
>consideration. The status (domesticated or wild) does not have the
>importance you try to get us to assign it. That is why I am opposing
>you.

Bullshit. You/"aras" are the ones who want to restrict where consideration
is made, and you only want it made in the direction of wildlife. I consider both
and conclude that livestock lives can be and sometimes/often are of equal
or superior positive value to those of wildlife, and you try continuously--though
extremely unsuccessfully--to oppose the fact. "Why?" still remains a mystery.

>> you claim to be
>> deliberately spending EXTRA money ONLY to contribute to life for
>> future cage free hens.
>
>If I spend the money it is because I want the laying hen industry to be
>compassionate towards the chickens

A person would ONLY spend the EXTRA money for cage free eggs,
IF! they wanted to contribute to cage free lives for laying hens. I know
that and I do it. You don't know it and therefore have absolutely no
reason to do it, so of course I can't believe you ever would do it. With
the oppositions you have, you would be a complete idiot to waste extra
money on something that you oppose me for encouraging!

>and because it produces a product
>I want to eat, not because I feel a moral obligation to enable future
>generations of chickens.

You're still not capable of considering whether or not raising animals
for food is cruel to them, and most likely you never will be. Unless you
finally learn to consider their lives some day, you will be unable to
consider whether or not it's cruel to them for the rest of your life, just as
you have always been unable to do it and are still unable to do it now.