Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence
- blabbered and presented no challenge:
> On Wed, 23 Jul Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in
existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in
existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
No "challenge".
>>>> :
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:28:52 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in
existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
No "pointing out".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:29:55 GMT, Dutch <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Logic of the Larder was defeated in 1914. Many legitimate
arguments
>>>>>>>> exist for the humane use of animals, LoL (aptly) is not one of
them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals,
that it is
>>>>>>>> better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live at
all. " - Salt
>>>>>>> Only to people who believe that experiencing a decent life of
>>>>>>> positive value is better than not experiencing it,
>>>>>> It's an illegitimate argument. The wish is so obviously father to
the
>>>>>> thought...
>>>>> Try explaining how you think that prevents livestock from
>>>>> benefitting from their lives.
>>>> Never were talking about that
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Rudy Canoza
True.
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Rudy Canoza
True.
>>>
>>> "when it [mangled quote]
Try again.
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Rudy Canoza
True.
>>>
>>> "Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or
>>> even to humans" - Rudy Canoza
True.
>>>
>>> "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other
>>> animals." - Rudy Canoza
True.
>>>
>>> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is
>>> not a benefit at all" - Rudy Canoza
True.
>>>
>>> "I have examined the question at length, and feel
>>> there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
>>> is not a benefit." - Rudy Canoza
True.
>>>
>>> "coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>>> I was before." - Rudy Canoza
True.
>>>
>>> "Life is not a gain" - Rudy Canoza
True.
>> All true statements above
>
> How can you think we were never talking about
> whether or not existing beings benefit
From this, ****wit, you greasy queer:
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999
If you keep an animal from being born which
would have been born without your interference,
you have denied life to it, whether it actually
exists or not.
****wit - 28 Sept 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2x3ogu
If it is wrong to cut their lives short, it is
even more wrong to discourage them from ever
getting to experience life at all IMO.
****wit - 9 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/38bd9v
I am talking about non-existing entities as if
they will be alive some day. You are encouraging
the idea that they should never be alive.
****wit - 10 Nov 1999 http://tinyurl.com/2nypox
|
