On Sun, 04 Feb 2007, an inept and bewildered Goober wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> You really have to wonder why ****wit even bothered to
>>> start on this at all:
>>
>> It's because
>
>It's because you are a low-time-value stupid cracker
>who is to stupid to know that you don't have enough
>talent to persuade intelligent people to accept your
>lies at face value.

Veg*nism does NOTHING to help any livestock Goober,
as you "aras" dishonestly want people to believe it does.
Look at these lies your "ar" heroes have directed at children:
__________________________________________________ _______
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!

http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
None of you have ever been able to explain how veg*nism
could help any livestock, because it does NOT. Just accept
it Goo, and it might make you a somewhat less bewildered
person. If you would quit lying to children about veg*nism
helping livestock, that would be best too. People can only
help livestock with their lifestyle by being more conscientious
consumers of animal products Goob, not by being vegan.

>YOU, ****wit, believe that the mere fact of their
>"getting to experience life" justifies anything done to
>them.

No Goo, but as I have shown and you have proven,
you "aras" are just necessarily incapable of distinguishing
between when their lives are of positive value and when
they are not. Since you can't understand the fact that
some of them do have lives of positive value, how could
you possibly distinguish between when they do and when
they don't? You can't Goo...it's beyond your ability. You
"aras" are trying to impose your influence on something
you can't even comprehend.

>>> ****wit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
>>> insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
>>> how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
>>> ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
>>> them.
>>
>> And that you do
>
>No.

It is your burden Goober, but it's one you can't even
budge, much less can you bear. None of you can, Goo.

>Your belief is so illogical and so many times
>shown to be nonsense that no one needs to demonstrate
>the superiority of anything in relation to your weird,
>****witted belief.

Though there is undoudtedly suffering involved with
the farming of animals for food, there are also situations
which provide decent lives for the animals, Goober. You
"aras"are the only ones who have ever insisted that:

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

and:

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

and:

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

and:

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

and:

"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

and:

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

but at other times you did try to disagree with yourself Goober,
....fleetingly pretending that you had some clue about reality:

"Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo

"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the aspects
of their lives." - Goo

It can't go both ways Goob, and even though it is completely
beyond your ability to comprehend much less explain, it remains
the obligation of somewhat less inept people who also insist that:

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

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

to explain for whom or what the proposed elimination would
supposedly be better. "aras" are the ones trying to promote
elimination Goober, and so they--meaning you too Goo--have
the obligation of trying to explain WHY. People who feel that
providing decent AW is the best approach, will continue to
feel that way unless you "aras" can eventually explain why we
should believe that elimination would be better instead. That's
just how it always has been, is now, and always will be Goob,
and your pitiful attempts at denial can do nothing to change it.

We know that you "aras" want people to believe:

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

but it's also very clear that the ONLY thing that might benefit from
it, would be those of you who are upset because animals are
raised for food. It is selfishness Goober, and that's all it is.

On Feb 5, 9:39 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007, an inept and bewildered Goober wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007, Goo wrote:
>
> >>> You really have to wonder why ****wit even bothered to
> >>> start on this at all:
>
> >> It's because
>
It's because there is something seriously wrong inside your head.
Besides your "arguments" don't really make any sense.