On 7 Feb 2006, the Goober wondered:

>dh pointed out:

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

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

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