****wit David Harrison, convicted felon (cockfighting), lied:

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

Not a quote.


>>
>> You give the quality of their lives *zero* consideration, Goo.
>
> Your quote above proves that quality means nothing to you

No.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:57:27 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:50:55 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:28:12 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, dh@. quoted Goo revealing that
>>>>> quality of life doesn't matter to him:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>
>>>You give the quality of their lives *zero* consideration, Goo.
>>
>> Your quote above proves that quality means nothing to you, Goo.
>>. . .
>>>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't *MEAN* anything" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't mean anything." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>. . .
>>>>>>"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
>>>>>>existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>>. . .
>>>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>
>>>The part to which you give *no* consideration, Goo. I've proved it, via
>>>your own quotes.
>>
>> I proved that you give no consideration to the part about quality of life by
>>posting your quotes Goob. You have confirmed that it means nothing to you, but I
>>proved it to begin with by quoting you specifically saying so.
>
>No.

Yes that's how I proved it Goob.

>>>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>their deaths" - Goo

****wit David Harrison, a felon convicted of engaging in illegal animal
combats, lied:

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

Not a quote. This has been established beyond all dispute.



>>>> The part to which you give *no* consideration, Goo. I've proved it, via
>>>> your own quotes.

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.
Goo/****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.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003


>>> I proved that you give no consideration to the part about quality of life
>>
>> No.
>
> Yes that's how

No. I do give consideration to the quality of animals' lives, Goo, but
you don't - all you care about is that they exist. See above.