On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wailed:

>Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
>edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
>expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?

LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
the world that livestock do not benefit:

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

So Goob, which part of your belief that:

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than
ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

are you now *hilariously!* trying to claim that you disagree with?
Goo? You are expected to be an inept failure as we know, but
please attempt to explain which part of your belief you amusingly
think that you disagree with, if any.

On 17 Apr 2006, the Goober desperately cried:

>****wit David Harrison, whom every serious anti-"ar" writer ridicules
>and despises, blabbered:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
>> >edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
>> >expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?
>>
>> LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
>> the world that livestock do not benefit:
>>
>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>> "Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>> killing of the animals erases all of it."
>
>Not what was written. Here is what was written:
>
> ****wit:
> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
>
> Leif:
> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY
> care about is the animals' "getting to experience
> life", NOT any "decent lives".
>
> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.
>
> 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
> of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:
>
> a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
> in their opinion
> b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
>
>
>****wit David Harrison *ALWAYS* lies to misrepresent the opinions

Goober, just tell us which of your statements you think you
disagree with, our you should really quit making an ever bigger
ass of yourself. But Goo...*IF* you can explain which of your
statements you think you disagree with, I would like to see it
and there may be others who would also be amused by it.
Give it a try Goo...you certainly have nothing to lose, even
though you are so very inept in the area of explaining your
absurd ideas.

Dave wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On 17 Apr 2006, the Goober desperately cried:
> >
> > >****wit David Harrison, whom every serious anti-"ar" writer ridicules
> > >and despises, blabbered:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
> > >> >edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
> > >> >expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?
> > >>
> > >> LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
> > >> the world that livestock do not benefit:
> > >>
> > >> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
> > >>
> > >> "Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
> > >> killing of the animals erases all of it."
> > >
> > >Not what was written. Here is what was written:
> > >
> > > ****wit:
> > > > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
> > > > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
> > >
> > > Leif:
> > > 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY
> > > care about is the animals' "getting to experience
> > > life", NOT any "decent lives".
> > >
> > > 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
> > > superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.
> > >
> > > 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
> > > of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:
> > >
> > > a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
> > > in their opinion
> > > b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
> > > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
> > >
> > >
> > >****wit David Harrison *ALWAYS* lies to misrepresent the opinions
> >
> > Goober, just tell us which of your statements you think you
> > disagree with, our you should really quit making an ever bigger
> > ass of yourself. But Goo...*IF* you can explain which of your
> > statements you think you disagree with, I would like to see it
> > and there may be others who would also be amused by it.
> > Give it a try Goo...you certainly have nothing to lose, even
> > though you are so very inept in the area of explaining your
> > absurd ideas.
>
> The point is that you quoted him out of context.

He did worse than that. He edited the quote, changing its entire
meaning. My "****wit's Beliefs" FAQ scrupulously preserves his actual
quotes.


****wit is a born liar, and quote-mangling is just one form of lying.

> He never said he
> believed that "no matter how decent the conditions are, the
> deliberate killing of animals erases all of it. He just said that it
> was a complaint made by vegans that your arguments have
> not addressed.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:21:22 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>>On 17 Apr 2006, the Goober desperately cried:
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, whom every serious anti-"ar" writer ridicules
>>>and despises, blabbered:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
>>>> >edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
>>>> >expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
>>>> the world that livestock do not benefit:
>>>>
>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>>>> killing of the animals erases all of it."
>>>
>>>Not what was written. Here is what was written:
>>>
>>> ****wit:
>>> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
>>> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
>>>
>>> Goo:
>>> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY
>>> care about is the animals' "getting to experience
>>> life", NOT any "decent lives".
>>>
>>> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
>>> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.
>>>
>>> 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
>>> of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:
>>>
>>> a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
>>> in their opinion
>>> b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
>>> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>****wit David Harrison *ALWAYS* lies to misrepresent the opinions
>>
>> Goober, just tell us which of your statements you think you
>>disagree with, our you should really quit making an ever bigger
>>ass of yourself.

>****wit: you attributed something to me that I didn't say. I caught
>you

Which of your objections to people considering contributing
to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, do
you think you disagree with if any? Don't you even know that,
you poor, stupid, inept Goober?

On 18 Apr 2006 15:35:42 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 2006, the Goober desperately cried:
>>
>> >****wit David Harrison, whom every serious anti-"ar" writer ridicules
>> >and despises, blabbered:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
>> >> >edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
>> >> >expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?
>> >>
>> >> LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
>> >> the world that livestock do not benefit:
>> >>
>> >> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>> >>
>> >> "Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>> >> killing of the animals erases all of it."
>> >
>> >Not what was written. Here is what was written:
>> >
>> > ****wit:
>> > > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
>> > > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
>> >
>> > Leif:
>> > 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY
>> > care about is the animals' "getting to experience
>> > life", NOT any "decent lives".
>> >
>> > 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
>> > superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.
>> >
>> > 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
>> > of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:
>> >
>> > a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
>> > in their opinion
>> > b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
>> > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
>> >
>> >
>> >****wit David Harrison *ALWAYS* lies to misrepresent the opinions
>>
>> Goober, just tell us which of your statements you think you
>> disagree with, our you should really quit making an ever bigger
>> ass of yourself. But Goo...*IF* you can explain which of your
>> statements you think you disagree with, I would like to see it
>> and there may be others who would also be amused by it.
>> Give it a try Goo...you certainly have nothing to lose, even
>> though you are so very inept in the area of explaining your
>> absurd ideas.
>
>The point is that you quoted him out of context. He never said he
>believed that "no matter how decent the conditions are, the
>deliberate killing of animals erases all of it. He just said that it
>was a complaint made by vegans that your arguments have
>not addressed.

Why are you lying for Goo? I obviously asked your Goober
why HE obviously doesn't want people to consider contributing
to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, and
he specifically said ONE reason why HE doesn't want them to
is because HE agrees that: "no matter how "decent" the
conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."

On 18 Apr 2006 19:17:37 -0700, wrote:

>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>> > dh@. wrote:
>> > > On 17 Apr 2006, the Goober desperately cried:
>> > >
>> > > >****wit David Harrison, whom every serious anti-"ar" writer ridicules
>> > > >and despises, blabbered:
>> > > >
>> > > >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
>> > > >> >edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
>> > > >> >expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
>> > > >> the world that livestock do not benefit:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>> > > >> killing of the animals erases all of it."
>> > > >
>> > > >Not what was written. Here is what was written:
>> > > >
>> > > > ****wit:
>> > > > > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
>> > > > > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
[...]
>> > > > Goo:
>> > > > b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
>> > > > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >****wit David Harrison *ALWAYS* lies to misrepresent the opinions
>> > >
>> > > Goober, just tell us which of your statements you think you
>> > > disagree with, our you should really quit making an ever bigger
>> > > ass of yourself. But Goo...*IF* you can explain which of your
>> > > statements you think you disagree with, I would like to see it
>> > > and there may be others who would also be amused by it.
>> > > Give it a try Goo...you certainly have nothing to lose, even
>> > > though you are so very inept in the area of explaining your
>> > > absurd ideas.
>> >
>> > The point is that you quoted him out of context.
>>
>> He did worse than that. He edited the quote, changing its entire
>> meaning. My "****wit's Beliefs" FAQ scrupulously preserves his actual
>> quotes.
>>
>>
>> ****wit is a born liar, and quote-mangling is just one form of lying.
>
>
>quote-mangling you would *never* do would you Goober?
>you couldn't even mangle a marshmallow.

Probably not, but we know Goo is a liar. And we know that
he is an inept failure. Even as the Goober cries and whines
hilariously about being misrepresented by himself, he fails
completely to explain exactly which of his beliefs he's trying
to persuade people that he disagrees with if any, and why.

On 18 Apr 2006, Goo wailed pitifully:

>> > > dh:
>> > > > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
>> > > > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
>> > >
>> > > Goo:
>> > > 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY
>> > > care about is the animals' "getting to experience
>> > > life", NOT any "decent lives".
>> > >
>> > > 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
>> > > superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.
>> > >
>> > > 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
>> > > of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:
>> > >
>> > > a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
>> > > in their opinion
>> > > b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
>> > > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
[...]
>He edited the quote, changing its entire meaning.

It did nothing to change the meaning Goober. You believe that
regardless of quality, no farm animals' lives are of positive value.
And you believe that regardless of quality their lives should be
given no consideration, but their deaths should. Or are you trying
to crawl away from your belief as you appear to be, Goober?
Have you finally learned that some livestock do have lives of
positive value and they should be taken into consideration, Goo?

dh@. wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2006 15:35:42 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 17 Apr 2006, the Goober desperately cried:
> >>
> >> >****wit David Harrison, whom every serious anti-"ar" writer ridicules
> >> >and despises, blabbered:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
> >> >> >edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
> >> >> >expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
> >> >> the world that livestock do not benefit:
> >> >>
> >> >> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
> >> >>
> >> >> "Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
> >> >> killing of the animals erases all of it."
> >> >
> >> >Not what was written. Here is what was written:
> >> >
> >> > ****wit:
> >> > > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
> >> > > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
> >> >
> >> > Leif:
> >> > 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY
> >> > care about is the animals' "getting to experience
> >> > life", NOT any "decent lives".
> >> >
> >> > 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
> >> > superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.
> >> >
> >> > 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
> >> > of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:
> >> >
> >> > a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
> >> > in their opinion
> >> > b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
> >> > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >****wit David Harrison *ALWAYS* lies to misrepresent the opinions
> >>
> >> Goober, just tell us which of your statements you think you
> >> disagree with, our you should really quit making an ever bigger
> >> ass of yourself. But Goo...*IF* you can explain which of your
> >> statements you think you disagree with, I would like to see it
> >> and there may be others who would also be amused by it.
> >> Give it a try Goo...you certainly have nothing to lose, even
> >> though you are so very inept in the area of explaining your
> >> absurd ideas.
> >
> >The point is that you quoted him out of context. He never said he
> >believed that "no matter how decent the conditions are, the
> >deliberate killing of animals erases all of it. He just said that it
> >was a complaint made by vegans that your arguments have
> >not addressed.
>
> Why are you lying for Goo?

I am not.

> I obviously asked your Goober
> why HE obviously doesn't want people to consider contributing
> to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, and
> he specifically said ONE reason why HE doesn't want them to

You attributed the following quote to him: "no matter how decent the
conditions are, the deliberate killing of animals erases all of it."
In reply Leif posted the message where that quote came from.
The attributed quote was prefaced (in effect) with "the vegan
position is..." Now if you can link a post where Leif made the
same quote whilst presenting his own position then I will have
to apologise to you but at the moment it appears that you are
either intentionally misrepresenting Leif or you have a serious
comprehension problem.

> is because HE agrees that: "no matter how "decent" the
> conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."

Where has he said that he agrees with that position?

Dave wrote:

> dh@. wrote:
>
>>On 18 Apr 2006 15:35:42 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 17 Apr 2006, the Goober desperately cried:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrison, whom every serious anti-"ar" writer ridicules
>>>>>and despises, blabbered:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
>>>>>>>edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
>>>>>>>expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
>>>>>>the world that livestock do not benefit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>>>>>>killing of the animals erases all of it."
>>>>>
>>>>>Not what was written. Here is what was written:
>>>>>
>>>>> ****wit:
>>>>> > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
>>>>> > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
>>>>>
>>>>> Leif:
>>>>> 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY
>>>>> care about is the animals' "getting to experience
>>>>> life", NOT any "decent lives".
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
>>>>> superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
>>>>> of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:
>>>>>
>>>>> a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
>>>>> in their opinion
>>>>> b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
>>>>> deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrison *ALWAYS* lies to misrepresent the opinions
>>>>
>>>> Goober, just tell us which of your statements you think you
>>>>disagree with, our you should really quit making an ever bigger
>>>>ass of yourself. But Goo...*IF* you can explain which of your
>>>>statements you think you disagree with, I would like to see it
>>>>and there may be others who would also be amused by it.
>>>>Give it a try Goo...you certainly have nothing to lose, even
>>>>though you are so very inept in the area of explaining your
>>>>absurd ideas.
>>>
>>>The point is that you quoted him out of context. He never said he
>>>believed that "no matter how decent the conditions are, the
>>>deliberate killing of animals erases all of it. He just said that it
>>>was a complaint made by vegans that your arguments have
>>>not addressed.
>>
>> Why are you lying for Goo?
>
>
> I am not.
>
>
>>I obviously asked your Goober
>>why HE obviously doesn't want people to consider contributing
>>to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, and
>>he specifically said ONE reason why HE doesn't want them to
>
>
> You attributed the following quote to him: "no matter how decent the
> conditions are, the deliberate killing of animals erases all of it."
> In reply Leif posted the message where that quote came from.
> The attributed quote was prefaced (in effect) with "the vegan
> position is..." Now if you can link a post where Leif made the
> same quote whilst presenting his own position then I will have
> to apologise to you but

You're entirely in the clear; no apology necessary.
The exchange I copied is the *only* time I wrote it,
and it is the source for ****wit's mangled phony "quote".


> at the moment it appears that you are
> either intentionally misrepresenting Leif or you have a serious
> comprehension problem.

It is the former, and there are literally dozens of
other times he's done exactly the same thing. He takes
some instance of my having said in effect "the vegan
position is 'X'", and then he just reproduces 'X' and
attributes it to me as if it is my own thinking. The
editing is always exceptionally crude, too.


>>is because HE agrees that: "no matter how "decent" the
>>conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."
>
>
> Where has he said that he agrees with that position?

I haven't; not anything even close to it. I believe
the exact opposite of it, and ****wit knows it.
****wit is just ****y, like a teenaged girl, because I
also reject *his* ****witted non-opposition to "ar";
it's complete and utter horseshit.

On 19 Apr 2006 16:45:35 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2006 15:35:42 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 17 Apr 2006, the Goober desperately cried:
>> >>
>> >> >****wit David Harrison, whom every serious anti-"ar" writer ridicules
>> >> >and despises, blabbered:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Goo wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Why did you lie and try to pretend that I believe the
>> >> >> >edited statement you wrote, ****wit? Do you seriously
>> >> >> >expect to get away with that kind of ****witted lie?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LOL!!! Goober, for years you have been proclaiming to
>> >> >> the world that livestock do not benefit:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>> >> >> killing of the animals erases all of it."
>> >> >
>> >> >Not what was written. Here is what was written:
>> >> >
>> >> > ****wit:
>> >> > > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
>> >> > > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective
>> >> >
>> >> > Leif:
>> >> > 1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison: what you REALLY
>> >> > care about is the animals' "getting to experience
>> >> > life", NOT any "decent lives".
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
>> >> > superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.
>> >> >
>> >> > 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
>> >> > of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:
>> >> >
>> >> > a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
>> >> > in their opinion
>> >> > b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
>> >> > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >****wit David Harrison *ALWAYS* lies to misrepresent the opinions
>> >>
>> >> Goober, just tell us which of your statements you think you
>> >> disagree with, our you should really quit making an ever bigger
>> >> ass of yourself. But Goo...*IF* you can explain which of your
>> >> statements you think you disagree with, I would like to see it
>> >> and there may be others who would also be amused by it.
>> >> Give it a try Goo...you certainly have nothing to lose, even
>> >> though you are so very inept in the area of explaining your
>> >> absurd ideas.
>> >
>> >The point is that you quoted him out of context. He never said he
>> >believed that "no matter how decent the conditions are, the
>> >deliberate killing of animals erases all of it. He just said that it
>> >was a complaint made by vegans that your arguments have
>> >not addressed.
>>
>> Why are you lying for Goo?
>
>I am not.
>
>> I obviously asked your Goober
>> why HE obviously doesn't want people to consider contributing
>> to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, and
>> he specifically said ONE reason why HE doesn't want them to
>
>You attributed the following quote to him: "no matter how decent the
>conditions are, the deliberate killing of animals erases all of it."
>In reply Leif posted the message where that quote came from.
>The attributed quote was prefaced (in effect) with "the vegan
>position is..." Now if you can link a post where Leif made the
>same quote whilst presenting his own position then I will have
>to apologise to you but at the moment it appears that you are
>either intentionally misrepresenting Leif or you have a serious
>comprehension problem.
>
>> is because HE agrees that: "no matter how "decent" the
>> conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."
>
>Where has he said that he agrees with that position?

I asked him why HE is opposed to people considering decent AW
over "ar", and those were the reasons he gave. Do you really believe
Goo is stupid enough to include reasons he disagrees with, while
explaining why HE is opposed to people considering contributing to
decent AW over "ar"? As stupid as he has shown to be, I don't believe
even Goo is quite *that* stupid. If he didn't agree with it, he would
not have included it.

Also. If he doesn't agree with what he wrote, then what is left
for him to agree with? Not much. He doesn't believe their lives are
worthy of moral consideration:

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

but that their deaths should be given consideration:

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral consideration,
and is given none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

" Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in ****wit's
wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for killing them.." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths"
- Goo

So by Goo's own proclamations, as well as the fact that he included
it with reasons why he opposes consideration of decent AW over "ar",
and the fact that he leaves nothing else for himself to consider, there's
nothing for me to believe except that he agrees with what I quoted.

dh@. wrote:

[snip]
> >> >
> >> >The point is that you quoted him out of context. He never said he
> >> >believed that "no matter how decent the conditions are, the
> >> >deliberate killing of animals erases all of it. He just said that it
> >> >was a complaint made by vegans that your arguments have
> >> >not addressed.
> >>
> >> Why are you lying for Goo?
> >
> >I am not.
> >
> >> I obviously asked your Goober
> >> why HE obviously doesn't want people to consider contributing
> >> to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, and
> >> he specifically said ONE reason why HE doesn't want them to
> >
> >You attributed the following quote to him: "no matter how decent the
> >conditions are, the deliberate killing of animals erases all of it."
> >In reply Leif posted the message where that quote came from.
> >The attributed quote was prefaced (in effect) with "the vegan
> >position is..." Now if you can link a post where Leif made the
> >same quote whilst presenting his own position then I will have
> >to apologise to you but at the moment it appears that you are
> >either intentionally misrepresenting Leif or you have a serious
> >comprehension problem.
> >
> >> is because HE agrees that: "no matter how "decent" the
> >> conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."
> >
> >Where has he said that he agrees with that position?
>
> I asked him why HE is opposed to people considering decent AW
> over "ar",

He is not opposed to people considering decent AW over "ar". What he
is opposed to is considering the fact that farm animals get to
experience
life when asking whether or not it is moral to kill them.

> and those were the reasons he gave.

They were reasons he clearly attributed to vegans and never
claimed to agree with.

> Do you really believe
> Goo is stupid enough to include reasons he disagrees with,

Why do you consider it a stupid thing for him to do?

> while
> explaining why HE is opposed to people considering contributing to
> decent AW over "ar"? As stupid as he has shown to be, I don't believe
> even Goo is quite *that* stupid. If he didn't agree with it, he would
> not have included it.

He was expressing his opinion that your arguments do nothing to
meaningfully challenge the position of vegans. He then went on to
elaborate what he believes this position is. On many occasions he
has made clear that he does not agree with the vegan position but
apparantly he disagrees at least as vehemently with your supposed
"refutation". The enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend.

> Also. If he doesn't agree with what he wrote, then what is left
> for him to agree with? Not much. He doesn't believe their lives are
> worthy of moral consideration:
>
> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
> to experience life" deserves no consideration when
> asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>
> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
> ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>
> but that their deaths should be given consideration:
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral consideration,
> and is given none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
> humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>
> " Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in ****wit's
> wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for killing them.." - Goo
>
> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
> some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths"
> - Goo

These quotations are all meaningless because you have deleted
the context in which they were written.
>
> So by Goo's own proclamations, as well as the fact that he included
> it with reasons why he opposes consideration of decent AW over "ar",
> and the fact that he leaves nothing else for himself to consider, there's
> nothing for me to believe except that he agrees with what I quoted.

On 20 Apr 2006 12:50:11 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >The point is that you quoted him out of context. He never said he
>> >> >believed that "no matter how decent the conditions are, the
>> >> >deliberate killing of animals erases all of it. He just said that it
>> >> >was a complaint made by vegans that your arguments have
>> >> >not addressed.
>> >>
>> >> Why are you lying for Goo?
>> >
>> >I am not.
>> >
>> >> I obviously asked your Goober
>> >> why HE obviously doesn't want people to consider contributing
>> >> to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective, and
>> >> he specifically said ONE reason why HE doesn't want them to
>> >
>> >You attributed the following quote to him: "no matter how decent the
>> >conditions are, the deliberate killing of animals erases all of it."
>> >In reply Leif posted the message where that quote came from.
>> >The attributed quote was prefaced (in effect) with "the vegan
>> >position is..." Now if you can link a post where Leif made the
>> >same quote whilst presenting his own position then I will have
>> >to apologise to you but at the moment it appears that you are
>> >either intentionally misrepresenting Leif or you have a serious
>> >comprehension problem.
>> >
>> >> is because HE agrees that: "no matter how "decent" the
>> >> conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."
>> >
>> >Where has he said that he agrees with that position?
>>
>> I asked him why HE is opposed to people considering decent AW
>> over "ar",
>
>He is not opposed to people considering decent AW over "ar".

LOL! Then why do think he gave specific reasons why he is?

>What he
>is opposed to is considering the fact that farm animals get to
>experience
>life when asking whether or not it is moral to kill them.
>
>> and those were the reasons he gave.
>
>They were reasons he clearly attributed to vegans and never
>claimed to agree with.
>
>> Do you really believe
>> Goo is stupid enough to include reasons he disagrees with,
>
>Why do you consider it a stupid thing for him to do?

It would be very stupid to include reasons you disagree with,
when explaining why you disagree with something. If you can't
figure out why, then ask someone you have respect for and let
me know what they say to you.

>> while
>> explaining why HE is opposed to people considering contributing to
>> decent AW over "ar"? As stupid as he has shown to be, I don't believe
>> even Goo is quite *that* stupid. If he didn't agree with it, he would
>> not have included it.
>
>He was expressing his opinion that your arguments do nothing to
>meaningfully challenge the position of vegans.

He like yourself is very much opposed to people deliberately
contributing to decent lives for livestock instead of being vegans.

>He then went on to
>elaborate what he believes this position is. On many occasions he
>has made clear that he does not agree with the vegan position but
>apparantly he disagrees at least as vehemently with your supposed
>"refutation". The enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend.
>
>> Also. If he doesn't agree with what he wrote, then what is left
>> for him to agree with? Not much. He doesn't believe their lives are
>> worthy of moral consideration:
>>
>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>> to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>> asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>
>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>> ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>>
>> but that their deaths should be given consideration:
>>
>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral consideration,
>> and is given none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
>> humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>> " Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in ****wit's
>> wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for killing them.." - Goo
>>
>> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
>> some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo
>>
>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths"
>> - Goo
>
>These quotations are all meaningless because you have deleted
>the context in which they were written.

The Goober has made it more than clear that he believes their
lives should be given no consideration, but that the "wrongness"
of their deaths should. You agree with him as do all "aras".

>> So by Goo's own proclamations, as well as the fact that he included
>> it with reasons why he opposes consideration of decent AW over "ar",
>> and the fact that he leaves nothing else for himself to consider, there's
>> nothing for me to believe except that he agrees with what I quoted.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 the Goober wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> I asked him why HE is opposed to people considering decent AW
>> over "ar", and those were the reasons he gave.
>
>No, ****wit. That's false. You once again gave your
>FALSE CHOICE, ****wit - "decent 'aw'" vs "the
>(imaginary) elimination objective" - and I:

That's what "ar" means in regards to the animals we raise
for food, Goo.

[...]
>you have NOT addressed the real complaints of "vegans"
>regarding human use of animals.

Which complaints do you consider to be real, and why
do you consider them to be...especially those which you're
hilariously pretending you disagree with?

(Note: it's too bad the Goober is so inept at presenting
his ideas, because it would almost certainly be amusing
to see him attempt to explain this one :-)

[...]
>You have
>repeatedly cried and bawled about me being "the most
>dishonest person I [****wit] have ever seen,"

And you most certainly are Goober. Congratulations for
being on the bottom, Mr Goo.

On 21 Apr 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:

>> He like yourself is very much opposed to people deliberately
>> contributing to decent lives for livestock instead of being vegans.
>
>I'm very much opposed to that FALSE CHOICE you keep presenting,
>****wit. It's a false choice - that is established.

It's not a false choice Goo. It's a choice that you/"aras" don't want
people to make instead of being vegan.

>> >He then went on to
>> >elaborate what he believes this position is. On many occasions he
>> >has made clear that he does not agree with the vegan position but
>> >apparantly he disagrees at least as vehemently with your supposed
>> >"refutation". The enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend.
>
>Exactly right.
>
>
>> >> Also. If he doesn't agree with what he wrote, then what is left
>> >> for him to agree with? Not much. He doesn't believe their lives are
>> >> worthy of moral consideration:
>> >>
>> >> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
>> >> to experience life" deserves no consideration when
>> >> asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Leif
>> >>
>> >> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>> >> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>> >> ZERO importance to it." - Leif
>> >>
>> >> but that their deaths should be given consideration:
>> >>
>> >> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral consideration,
>> >> and is given none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by
>> >> humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Leif
>> >>
>> >> " Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in ****wit's
>> >> wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for killing them.." - Leif
>> >>
>> >> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
>> >> some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Leif
>> >>
>> >> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths"
>> >> - Leif
>> >
>> >These quotations are all meaningless because you have deleted
>> >the context in which they were written.
>>
>> This Goober has made it more than clear that he believes their
>> lives should be given no consideration,
>
>I have made it more than clear, ****wit, that there is no moral reason
>for them to come into existence.

True. That doesn't mean we should prevent them Goo, or even
that we shouldn't consider their lives. We should Goo, especially
since you/"aras" hate it when people do.

>Their lives are not a morally "good
>thing" in and of themselves, ****wit.

That's a matter of opinion Goober. You believe the "wrongess" of
their deaths erases all of it. I don't.

You have taken your madness elsewhere.

Funny people. Sick, though.


sector_four

dh@. wrote:

> He like yourself is very much opposed to people deliberately
> contributing to decent lives for livestock instead of being vegans.

*yawn* Stop lying about we believe.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Goo cowardly/amusingly continued trying
to abandon his own beliefs:

>****wit David Harrison, dumber than a donkey, lied:
>
>> On 21 Apr 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>you have NOT addressed the real complaints of "vegans"
>>>>>regarding human use of animals.
>>>>
>>>> Which complaints do you consider to be real, and why
>>>>do you consider them to be...especially those which you're
>>>>hilariously pretending you disagree with?
>>>
>>>****wit: YOU need to address the "vegans'" complaints with them.
>>>Just stop LYING about what they say, and stop pretending they haven't
>>>expressed what it is they find objectionable about raising animals.
>>
>>
>> Which complaints do you consider to be real,
>
>Take it up with them, ****wit. Don't address their
>complaints with me

Well Goober, only because you're so very inept at presenting your
ideas. But Goo, no one can address what you consider to be the
"real complaints" of vegans unless you say what they are, you poor
stupid moron. LOL...by now you've proven to be so inept that you
can't even explain which vegan complaints you yourself consider to
be real, much less attempt to explain why you disagree with them.
You really REALLY! suck at this Goo.