Is anyone fooled by the Goober?
dh
time. Then when I answer the fool, he HILARIOUSLY
snipps the answer because he can't oppose it, then
more hilariously/dishonestly/childishly/stupidly=Goobaly
claims that I haven't answered him. LOL...is anyone
ever stupid enough to be fooled by Goo when he attempts
to play such infantile tricks?
Leif Erikson
> Then when I answer
You haven't answered, Fuckwit. Not once.
Leif:
> WHY are you so obsessed with livestock existing,
Fuckwit?
Fuckwit, the ignorant homo redneck:
I'm free to give them as much consideration as
YOU/"ARAs"
want everybody to give to wildife
That is NOT an answer to the question asked, Fuckwit,
you gutless chickenshit no-fight punk. You're a punk,
Fuckwit - a craven, cowardly, takes-it-up-the-ass punk.
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> Goo keeps asking me the same questions all the
>> time.
>
>Because you keep failing to answer them,
I answer them and you snip the answers Goo.
>FUCKWIT.
>
>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>experience life"?
I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
lives of wildlife.
>Why do you think it is "better" for
>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>never exist?
Some of them have lives of positive value and some
do not, depending on quality of life, so that is how people
should think about it, NOT that all of it is evil wrongness as
YOU/"ARAs" try to make everyone believe it is:
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <Mnj_d.6837$qW....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <Q4RKd.2867$Ix....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>(Hint in answering that second one:
>don't say because they "benefit" from existing; they do
>not.)
YOU/"ARAs" are unaware of how life can have positive value
for livestock, and most likely for anything else.
>Why do you think livestock exist for *any*
>reason except to satisfy human wants?
>
>Bonus question: why can't you see that your silly game
>failed?
If you mean why do I believe YOU/"ARAs" attempt to
oppose the facts I point out, I don't believe it's because
you're too stupid to understand them. And I do know it's
because they work against what YOU/"ARAs" are trying
to get everyone to believe, and what you are trying to
accomplish:
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <1109786836.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <5r5Ud.7831$Ba3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm
animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more
just world.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Leif Erikson
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Does anyone think Fuckwit David Harrison has a clue?:
> >> Leif keeps asking me the same questions all the
> >> time.
> >
> >Because you keep failing to answer them,
>
> I answer them
You're lying, Fuckwit. You don't answer them. You *know* that if you
were to answer them truthfully, you'd expose your ass.
> >FUCKWIT.
> >
> >Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
> >obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
> >experience life"?
>
> I'm aware that
Not an answer to the question, FUCKWIT.
> >Why do you think it is "better" for
> >the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
> >never exist?
>
> Some of them have lives of positive value
Not an answer to the question, FUCKWIT. You see how easy it is for me,
Fuckwit? You're not answering the question, and that's a big part of
the point of asking them.
> >(Hint in answering that second one:
> >don't say because they "benefit" from existing; they do
> >not.)
>
> YOU/"ARAs"
I'm not an "ara", Fuckwit, but of course you already knew that.
> are unaware of how life can have positive value
> for livestock,
STILL not an answer to the question, Fuckwit.
Coming into existence is not a benefit for aniamls, Fuckwit - not ever.
Life -per se- is not a benefit.
> >Why do you think livestock exist for *any*
> >reason except to satisfy human wants?
> >
> >Bonus question: why can't you see that your silly game
> >failed?
>
> If you mean
I mean just what I asked, Fuckwit: your silly, stupid, juvenile game
of trying to trick "vegans" into thinking they're doing something "bad"
by wanting livestock to disappear has failed completely.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>>experience life"?
>
> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
> much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
> lives of wildlife.
Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
"consideration" of yours?
>>Why do you think it is "better" for
>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>>never exist?
>
> Some of them have lives of positive value and some
> do not
That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.
Ron
You are an idiot Douche.
Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
you.
SlipperySlope
> Dutch wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>>>>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>>>>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>>>>experience life"?
>>>
>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>>>much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
>>>lives of wildlife.
>>
>>Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
>>"consideration" of yours?
>>
>>
>>>>Why do you think it is "better" for
>>>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>>>>never exist?
>>>
>>> Some of them have lives of positive value and some
>>>do not
>>
>>That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.
>
>
>
> You are an
Fuck off, Ronnie, you punk-ass felcher.
No animals "benefit" from "getting to experience life".
The only thing from which you'd benefit is a sock in
the jaw. Fuck off, punk.
Dutch
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote
>> > On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>> >>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>> >>experience life"?
>> >
>> > I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>> > much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
>> > lives of wildlife.
>>
>> Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
>> "consideration" of yours?
>>
>> >>Why do you think it is "better" for
>> >>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>> >>never exist?
>> >
>> > Some of them have lives of positive value and some
>> > do not
>>
>> That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.
>
>
> You are an idiot Douche.
Are you agreeing with Singer's view of the Salatin farm?
> Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
> their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
> you.
There are no livestock that are allowed to live out their "normal life
span". If and when you find any that are, then we *may* be able to argue
this utilitarian concept, even then it's very dubious. Arguing that we
should continue to raise livestock because "some of them" (undefined) have
lives of positive value is ridiculous.
rudy-...@excite.com
Did someone give you an atomic wedgie this morning Goo?
You sure have got your knickers in a bunch.
Kind of funny actually.
;o)
SlipperySlope
Fuck off, Ronnie, you pathetic felching homo.
Ron
delivered by a 4 foot tall, 300 lb. dwarf who prances around in
Victoria's Secret lingerie and terrorizes women?.........I think not.
Now go play with your gerbils Goo.
Ron
Your ability to comprehend the written word is appalling.
Get some one to explain to you what I wrote.
Dutch
I comprehend coherent thoughts. Yours are anything but.
> Get some one to explain to you what I wrote.
You wrote it, you explain it.
Leif Erikson
No, shit4braincell. You wrote about domestic animals
being "allowed to live out their normal life span", and
he correctly informed you that no domestic food animals
*are* allowed to live out their normal life span.
You fucked up, he caught you in your fuck-up, and now
you're blabbering about reading comprehension - the
*first* refuge of a usenet dweeb.
Ron
Read it again you pair of useless shitmonkeys.
Dutch
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote
It's still nonsense. You're a half-wit, apologies to half-wits everywhere.
You should have a nice milkshake, your brain is dissolving from
malnutrition.
Leif Erikson
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > pantywaist homo felcher Ronnie Hamilton shrieked:
> >
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > >>pantywaist homo felcher Ronnie Hamilton shrieked:
Still bullshit.
> Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
> their normal life span
NO LIVESTOCK ANIMALS *ARE* allowed to live out their normal lifespan,
you goddamned fucking HIV+ takes-it-up-the-coal-chute moron. They're
all killed long before their normal lifespan would run out. You
fucking ignorant clueless urbanite dweeb.
Leif Erikson
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > homo pantywaist Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
> >
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > >>homo pantywaist Ronnie Hamilton squealed;
Nothing changed in it, homo pantywaist.
>
> Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
> their normal life span
NO SUCH FUCKING ANIMALS, you goddamned fucking shiteating moron.
dh
You prove to be stupid enough to be fooled by Goo
all the time. You are the idiot's idiot as you prove once
more, so you're right in suggesting that I should have
asked: "Is anyone besides Doutche fooled by the Goober?"
dh
>Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
>
>> Then when I answer
>
>You haven't answered, Fuckwit. Not once.
>
> Leif:
> > WHY are you so obsessed with livestock existing,
>Fuckwit?
>
>
> Fuckwit, the ignorant homo redneck:
> I'm free to give them as much consideration as
>YOU/"ARAs"
> want everybody to give to wildife
>
>
>
>That is NOT an answer to the question asked,
Yes it is Goober. You're just too damn stupid to understand why
I want consumers to have as much influence as you/"aras":
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700
"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <1135809375....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Wildlife *does* exist, and more of it would exist if there weren't any
domestic livestock.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
are trying to have. And of course you're much much too stupid to
provide even one good reason why I shouldn't give them as much
consideration as you/"aras" do. But the stupidest part of it all is
that even though there is NO good reason why I shouldn't give
them as much consideration as you/"aras" give them, you very
desperately want there to be one and stupidly pretend that there
is one, even though there is not.
dh
>c:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo continued to wonder:
>> >Why do you think it is "better" for
>> >the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>> >never exist?
>>
>> Some of them have lives of positive value
>
>Not an answer to the question, FUCKWIT. You see how easy it is for me
LOL! You prove that it's impossible for you to understand
that life can have positive value for anything, you stupid
Goober. The ONLY thing that's easy for you, Goo, is to lie.
dh
>
>"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
>> their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
>> you.
>
>There are no livestock that are allowed to live out their "normal life
>span". If and when you find any that are, then we *may* be able to argue
>this utilitarian concept, even then it's very dubious. Arguing that we
>should continue to raise livestock because "some of them" (undefined) have
>lives of positive value
In the past you have not only pretended that you're not too stupid
to understand the fact, but also you pretended that you're not too
stupid to understand how it could be:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Message-ID: <tl6u464...@news.supernews.com>
The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:34:02 -0800
Message-ID: <11mbeq7...@news.supernews.com>
<dh@.> pointed out:
> Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of
> anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's
> possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS?
I've already said that it's possible, in the quote you keep asking me about.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>is ridiculous.
I keep asking you why in the hell you paste facts which you not
only don't agree with, but you can't even understand. Why do you,
you poor stupid fool? LOL! Probably Goo tells you to do it, and then
laughs at you even more as he watches you flop around trying to
get away from your own stupidity of having done so...lol...
dh
>homo pantywaist Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
>> Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
>> their normal life span
>
>NO SUCH FUCKING ANIMALS, you goddamned fucking shiteating moron.
Can you understand how life could have positive value for anything,
Goo?
dh
>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >>
>> >>>Dutch wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>><dh@.> wrote
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>> >>>>>>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>> >>>>>>experience life"?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>> >>>>>much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
>> >>>>>lives of wildlife.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
>> >>>>"consideration" of yours?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>Why do you think it is "better" for
>> >>>>>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>> >>>>>>never exist?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Some of them have lives of positive value and some
>> >>>>>do not
>> >>>>
>> >>>>That's not an answer fuckwit. You have no answer.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>You are an idiot Douche.
Quite the proven idiot...beginning with the first time he kissed
the Goober's ass. *IF* Douche is truly not a dishonest "ara" playing
along with Goo, I feel sure that Goo laughs at him constantly for
being such a gullible chump, since I find it pathetically hilarious
just thinking about the possibility of him really being as stupid as he
acts like he is.
>> >>Are you agreeing with Singer's view of the Salatin farm?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
>> >>>their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
>> >>>you.
>> >>
>> >>There are no livestock that are allowed to live out their "normal life
>> >>span". If and when you find any that are, then we *may* be able to argue
>> >>this utilitarian concept, even then it's very dubious. Arguing that we
>> >>should continue to raise livestock because "some of them" (undefined) have
>> >>lives of positive value is ridiculous.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Your ability to comprehend the written word is appalling.
>>
>> No, shit4braincell. You wrote about domestic animals
>> being "allowed to live out their normal life span", and
>> he correctly informed you that no domestic food animals
>> *are* allowed to live out their normal life span.
>>
>> You fucked up, he caught you in your fuck-up, and now
>> you're blabbering about reading comprehension - the
>> *first* refuge of a usenet dweeb.
>
>
>
>Read it again you pair of useless shitmonkeys.
>
>Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
>their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
>you.
Like many broiler chickens who are raised in open houses, and have
a normal life span of six weeks. But the Goos have taken on the
completely retarded postition that life can't have positive value for any
animal, and even if it did the morons insist it should not be taken into
consideration when considering human influence on animals.
Also. The Goobal position completely disregards quality of life, because
the Goos insist that none of their lives should be taken into consideration
regardless of quality. So their argument that we should give consideration
to the lives of wildlife but not to those of livestock is extra super retarded,
since they insist that *none* of their lives should ever be taken into
consideration. I'm sure glad they're on the "ar" side, even though they
may be correct in believing I'm the only "ar" opponent who can see how
stupid and full of shit they are.
Leif Erikson
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:02:14 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>>>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
>>>>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
>>>>experience life"?
>>>
>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>>>much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
>>>lives of wildlife.
>>
>>Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
>>"consideration" of yours?
Why should the continued existence of livestock get
*any* of your "consideration", Fuckwit, apart from your
wish to consume them?
Why are you still evading the question, Fuckwit: why
is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to
wild animals, continue to exist?
>>>>Why do you think it is "better" for
>>>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>>>>never exist?>>
>>>
>>> Some of them have lives of positive value and some
>>>do not
>>
>>That's not an answer
>
>
> You prove
You didn't give an answer, Fuckwit. You gave a
bullshit non sequitur to the question. Answer it now,
Fuckwit: Why do you think it is "better" for the
Leif Erikson
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:05:53 GMT, Leif Erikson <jack...@phs.con> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>
>>> Then when I answer
>>
>>You haven't answered, Fuckwit. Not once.
>>
>> Leif:
>> > WHY are you so obsessed with livestock existing,
>> > Fuckwit?
>>
>>
>> Fuckwit, the ignorant homo redneck:
>> I'm free to give them as much consideration as
>> YOU/"ARAs" want everybody to give to wildife
>>
>>
>>
>>That is NOT an answer to the question asked,
>
>
> Yes it is
It isn't, homo redneck. I asked you a question
beginning with "why", and "I'm free to..." doesn't
answer the question, Fuckwit. I didn't suggest you
aren't free to do whatever you like; I asked you WHY
you're so obsessed with livestock existing. Answer the
question, Fuckwit: WHY are you so obsessed with
livestock existing?
Leif Erikson
> On 4 Jan 2006 12:01:58 -0800, "Leif Erikson" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison lied::
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>>>Why do you think it is "better" for
>>>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
>>>>never exist?
>>>
>>> Some of them have lives of positive value
>>
>>Not an answer to the question, FUCKWIT. You see how easy it is for me
>
>
> LOL! You prove that it's impossible for you to understand
Answer the question, Fuckwit. Stop evading it and
answer it: Why do you think it is "better" for the
individual livestock animals to exist rather than never
exist?
You're fucked, Fuckwit. This simple question has you
totally fucked. Full marks to Dutch a while back for
asking it, because it is THE question you've been
evading for seven shitty years. Now, it's the question
that is explicitly going to be used to club the shit
out of you for as long as you stick around here.
Leif Erikson
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:57:14 GMT, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>>pathetic homo pantywaist Ronnie Hamilton gurgled:
>
>
>>>Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
>>>their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
>>>you.
>>
>>There are no livestock that are allowed to live out their "normal life
>>span". If and when you find any that are, then we *may* be able to argue
>>this utilitarian concept, even then it's very dubious. Arguing that we
>>should continue to raise livestock because "some of them" (undefined) have
>>lives of positive value
>
>
> In the past you have not only pretended that you're not too stupid
> to understand the fact
WHY are you so obsessed with livestock continuing to
exist, Fuckwit? Why are you blowing Ron Hamilton?
Leif Erikson
> On 6 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>homo pantywaist Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
>
>
>>>Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
>>>their normal life span
>>
>>NO SUCH FUCKING ANIMALS, you goddamned fucking shiteating moron.
>
>
> Can you understand how life could have positive value for anything
Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal,
Fuckwit: it doesn't improve an animal's welfare.
WHY are you so obsessed with the continuing existence
of livestock, Fuckwit? It can't be for their sake -
they don't benefit from coming into existence. So WHY,
Fuckwit?
Leif Erikson
> homo pantywaist fudgepacker Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
>
>
>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>>homo pantywaist fudgepacker Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>homo pantywaist fudgepacker Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison reflexively lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
No, their natural lifespan would be several years, but
they're killed at six weeks.
Liar.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:dmh3s1hs5nvpd2l35...@4ax.com...
That's not even your usual lousy answer.
Ron
Can you prove that Goober?
I think you're coming unhinged again.
Have Douche give you an enema immediately, only this time tell him NOT
to shove the garden hose in so far. I think he gave you brain damage
last time.
Rudy Canoza's Empty Skull
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison lied:
>
>
> You haven't answered, Fuckwit. Not once.
>
> Leif:
> > WHY are you so obsessed with livestock existing,
> Fuckwit?
>
>
> Fuckwit, the ignorant homo redneck:
> I'm free to give them as much consideration as
> YOU/"ARAs"
> want everybody to give to wildife
>
>
>
> you gutless chickenshit no-fight punk. You're a punk,
> Fuckwit - a craven, cowardly, takes-it-up-the-ass punk.
Goober, listen to me.
ricky etter is a little ~Jonnie~ Wannabe. You should ask him to move in
with you and you can mentor him.
In return he can help Douche give you a daily enima.
i see it as a win-win-win situation for you 3 stooges.
Rudy Canoza's Empty Skull
Goo! You are coming unhinged again.
Get Douche to give you an enema, quick!
Tell him to NOT push the garden hose in so far this time.
Leif Erikson
Livestock animals are slaughtered *LONG* before reaching the end of
their natural lives, ronnie, you fucking festering hemorrhoid.
Leif's Smarter Brother
what about the ones who manage to reach farm sanctuaries?
what about them Goober?
Leif Erikson
You're a pathetic joke, hemorrhoid Ronnie.
Ron
what about them Goober?
Leif Erikson
Shut up, you pathetic pin-dick of a bad joke.
Ron
what about them Goober?
Leif Erikson
Fuck off, ronnie, you pathetic pin-dick.
Leif's Smarter Brother
Something about those questions scare you Goober?
Leif Erikson
Demonstrates your stupidity and your lack of seriousness, homo
pantywaist ronnie, as well as your jamtart-ness.
Ron
"jamtart-ness"! ooooooo........Goober is so rattled he's inventing new
words.
Calm down Goober. You can hardly mentor young grasshopper ricky if you
are rattled.
Just answer the question: what about the ones who manage to reach farm
sanctuaries?
Leif Erikson
homo ronnie hamilton personified...
> Just answer the question: what about the ones
Fuck off, limp-wristed homo ronnie. There aren't any.
dh
>Fuckwit David Harrison reflexively lied:
>
>> homo pantywaist fudgepacker Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
>>>Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
>>>their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
>>>you.
>>
>>
>> Like many broiler chickens who are raised in open houses, and have
>> a normal life span of six weeks.
>
>No, their natural lifespan would be several years, but
>they're killed at six weeks.
No one said anything about their natural lifespan until you just brought
it up, you stupid Goober.
dh
Whether or not you consider it to be a usual lousy answer
to some question that's clanging around in your mostly empty
skull, it IS an answer to the question I asked regarding whether
or not anyone is fooled by the Goober.
The question that may be bothering you about why I go on
about livestock lives, must always be a question for you. That's
because as I've pointed out many times, you can't understand
the quote you pasted which draws attention to the fact:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Message-ID: <tl6u464...@news.supernews.com>
The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
LOL! The answer to your question IS the fact you pasted, you
poor fool. If you could understand what you pasted, you could
understand why I have an interest in human influence just as
you/"aras" try to have.
Leif Erikson
Atlanta, GA, lied:> >Fuckwit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied:> >>>Fuckwit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied:
> >>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>Try answering them now, Fuckwit: WHY are you so
> >>>>>obsessed with livestock, in particular, "getting to
> >>>>>experience life"?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
> >>>> much or more consideration than their deaths, and/or the
> >>>> lives of wildlife.
> >>>
> >>>Why more consideration? Why should livestock get so much of this
> >>>"consideration" of yours?
> >>>
> >>>>>Why do you think it is "better" for
> >>>>>the individual livestock animals to exist rather than
> >>>>>never exist?>>
> >>>> Some of them have lives of positive value and some
> >>>> do not
> >>>
> >>>That's not an answer
> >>
> >> You prove to be stupid enough to be fooled by Goo
> >> all the time. You are the idiot's idiot as you prove once
> >> more, so you're right in suggesting that I should have
> >> asked: "Is anyone besides Doutche fooled by the Goober?"
> >
> >That's not even your usual lousy answer.
>
> Whether or not you consider it to be a usual lousy answer
It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
Leif Erikson
Atlanta, GA, lied:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison reflexively lied:
> >
> >> homo pantywaist fudgepacker Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
>
> >>>Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
> >>>their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
> >>>you.
> >>
> >>
> >> Like many broiler chickens who are raised in open houses, and have
> >> a normal life span of six weeks.
> >
> >No, their natural lifespan would be several years, but
> >they're killed at six weeks.
>
> No one said anything about their natural lifespan until you just brought
> it up,
As usual, Fuckwit, you get it wrong. Dumbfuck douchebag homo
pantywaist Ronnie Hamilton is the one who brought it up. You ought to
invite Ronnie down to your houseboat some weekend, Fuckwit. You and he
could have an entire long weekend of wild-eyed bungholery together. I
can just see it: Saturday morning, you'd be dreaming you were hatching
a cucumber, and you'd wake to find Ronnie hanging onto your sideburns
and breathing hoarsely in your ear.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:54t8s110qgngjvei8...@4ax.com...
Read the thread you stupid jerk.
Dutch
> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
> much or more consideration than their deaths
Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration?
dh
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not>
Message-ID: <a6K%b.10491$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve
moral consideration, and gets it.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Dieter <d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de>
Message-ID: <Ydpwc.2521$uX2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral consideration.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: Rudy Canoza <som...@ph.con>
Message-ID: <Q4RKd.2867$Ix....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Message-ID: <dMXL8.198463$xS2.15...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>
they are a direct result of activities which humans undertake for their
own benefit. Since we cause these events to happen as a direct result
of feeding ourselves we must bear some responsibility for the deaths.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
LOL!!! Again we have proof that you are fooled even by yourself,
and by Goo too in this example, you poor stupid fool.
dh
>Goo hysterically raved:
>> homo pantywaist ronnie, as well as your jamtart-ness.
>
>
>"jamtart-ness"! ooooooo........Goober is so rattled he's inventing new
>words.
>
>Calm down Goober. You can hardly mentor young grasshopper ricky if you
>are rattled.
>
>Just answer the question: what about the ones who manage to reach farm
>sanctuaries?
Goo is admittedly too stupid to understand how life could have
positive value for anything at all. Unless the Goober can prove me
wrong and explain how life could have positive value for anything,
but we know he's not capable of doing that. He's just too stupid
to understand or even form an opinion. It's an aspect that he
obviously WANTS to be able to discuss, and even more obviously
can't even comprehend.
dh
>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
Message-ID: <tl6u464...@news.supernews.com>
The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
When not, can you explain why we should disregard the
fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths:
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Message-ID: <a6K%b.10491$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
of billions of animals?
dh
>Fuckwit David Harrison, pathetic 47 year old pimply-faced homo in
>Atlanta, GA, lied:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> >Fuckwit David Harrison reflexively lied:
>> >
>> >> homo pantywaist fudgepacker Ronnie Hamilton squealed:
>>
>> >>>Livestock that aren't being battery farmed and are allowed to live out
>> >>>their normal life span do have lives of positive value........unlike
>> >>>you.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Like many broiler chickens who are raised in open houses, and have
>> >> a normal life span of six weeks.
>> >
>> >No, their natural lifespan would be several years, but
>> >they're killed at six weeks.
>>
>> No one said anything about their natural lifespan until you just brought
>> it up,
>
>As usual, Fuckwit, you get it wrong. Dumbfuck douchebag homo
>pantywaist Ronnie Hamilton is the one who brought it up.
What do you think he said about their natural lifespan Goo?
dh
>Why should the continued existence of livestock get
>*any* of your "consideration", Fuckwit, apart from your
>wish to consume them?
Because you/"aras" suggest an influence:
_________________________________________________________
From: Goo
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700
"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
that as yet I've been given no reason to believe would be superior
to providing decent AW instead.
>Why are you still evading the question, Fuckwit: why
>is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to
>wild animals, continue to exist?
You would have to tell me which wild animals you're going
on about Goo. Do you have a clue about which of "them"
you do? Could you share that clue, Goo?
(prediction: the answer is: no clue)
(note: Goo's boy "Dutch" had a clue which consists only
of potential future wild mice, frogs and groundhogs who
are supposedly being kept down by the cattle)
Leif Erikson
homo, wailed:
> homo pantywaist shitbag ronnie hamilton squealed:
>
>
>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>>homo pantywaist ronnie, as well as your jamtart-ness.
>>
>>
>>"jamtart-ness"! ooooooo........Goober is so rattled he's inventing new
>>words.
>>
>>Calm down Goober. You can hardly mentor young grasshopper ricky if you
>>are rattled.
>>
>>Just answer the question: what about the ones who manage to reach farm
>>sanctuaries?
>
>
> Lefi is admittedly too stupid
No, Fuckwit. I haven't "admitted" anything to you.
You claim to consider me stupid, but in fact you know
that I am smarter than you, have a much higher IQ than
you, and have more than ten years more (and more
rigorous) education than you.
Your an undegreed, uneducated, semi-literate hillbilly
cracker living on a decrepit houseboat in Georgia,
Fuckwit. You don't know anything relevant to animals.
Leif Erikson
ALL excellent and factual observations. Thanks for
reposting those, Fuckwit.
The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock; but consideration of their
deaths does warrant some moral consideration.
Leif Erikson
> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>
>
>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>
>
> Can you explain
Of course. Everything you write is lousy, because
you're ignorant and stupid-by-choice.
Leif Erikson
pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied:
He said that some livestock animals get to "live out"
their natural lifespan, stupid ignorant cracker Fuckwit.
You're going to learn, Fuckwit, if I have to beat it
into you.
Leif Erikson
pimply-faced homo in Atlanta, GA, lied:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Why should the continued existence of livestock get
>>*any* of your "consideration", Fuckwit, apart from your
>>wish to consume them?
>
>
> Because you/"aras"
I'm not an "ara", Fuckwit - acknowledge that now, Fuckwit.
> suggest an influence:
> [snip mis-citation]
> that as yet I've been given no reason to believe would be superior
> to providing decent AW instead.
You're still evading the question, Fuckwit: *WHY*
should livestock exist, from a moral perspective? It's
obvious, Fuckwit: you *can't* answer the question; you
*must* continue to try to evade it, which is why I take
such great delight in clubbing you with it.
>>Why are you still evading the question, Fuckwit: why
>>is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to
>>wild animals, continue to exist?
>
>
> You would have to tell me
No, Fuckwit - *you* need to answer the question. I
don't need to tell you anything except what a beaten,
defeated shitbag you are, and I love telling you that.
*YOU* need to answer the question, which you're still
evading.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:03:42 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> I'm aware that the lives of livestock should be given as
>>> much or more consideration than their deaths
>>
>>Why should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration?
I asked for *your* opinion fuckwit, not the opinions of other people. Why
should the deaths of livestock be given any consideration? I would have
thought that you'd have an answer ready for that one.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:0oaas151hgiqg4so9...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>
>>It's lousier than your usual lousy, worthless answer.
>
> Can you explain how your boy's paste is not correct:
> _________________________________________________________
> From: "Dutch" <n...@email.com>
> Message-ID: <tl6u464...@news.supernews.com>
>
> The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> has positive or negative value to the animal.
That is accurate and relevant *if and only if* the animals are living.
Deciding to *not* raise livestock is NOT a moral consideration. Need I point
out that an animal cannot be abused or killed if it is never born?
> When not, can you explain why we should disregard the
> fact he mistakenly pasted when we consider the deaths:
> _________________________________________________________
> From: Goo
> Message-ID: <a6K%b.10491$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>
> the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
> consideration, and gets it.
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> of billions of animals?
Whatever number.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Goo continues to wonder:
>
>>Why should the continued existence of livestock get
>>*any* of your "consideration", Fuckwit, apart from your
>>wish to consume them?
>
> Because you/"aras" suggest an influence:
> _________________________________________________________
> From: Goo
> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700
>
> "vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> Fuckwit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products.
> That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> that as yet I've been given no reason to believe would be superior
> to providing decent AW instead.
We're not saying that it is, we're saying that raising livestock is not
morally superior as you are attempting to argue.
>>Why are you still evading the question, Fuckwit: why
>>is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to
>>wild animals, continue to exist?
>
> You would have to tell me which wild animals you're going
> on about Goo. Do you have a clue about which of "them"
> you do? Could you share that clue, Goo?
We're talking about every wild animal that is killed or displaced by pasture
lands and feed crops. There is no doubt that eliminating large ruminants
like cattle would result in enough land, food and water resources being
freed up to support *at least* as many indivdual animals of wild species,
undoubtedly more. So the argument that we ought to consider animals "getting
to experience life" actually works against you. If you want animals to
"experience life" you would probably do better as a vegan.
Ron
Face the fact that you were too afraid to answer my question Goober.
Now, on another note; did you make ricky take a Vow of Stupidity when
he became your novice goober?
LOL!!
Leif Erikson
Nothing about you, ronnie, could induce fear in anything. You only
provoke derisive laughter.
Leif's Smarter Brother
Then you should have no problem answering the question......should you
Goo?
Leif Erikson
I don't answer questions from unserious, clownish, HIV+ pantywaist
homos like you, ronnie.
Ron
You snarl, hiss, and spit like a demented pussycat when you get
cornered Goo.
What in the *hell* is the matter with you!?
Leif Erikson
I don't answer questions from chickenshit, unserious, clownish, HIV+
pantywaist homos like you, ronnie. That's all.
bpg...@yahoo.com
So says (rick==Dutch==Erikson==shithead) the meat industry shill.
Leif Erikson
No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
opponent of "veganism" participating here who is
employed by or has any professional connection to the
meat industry. We're attacking "veganism" because it's
a bullshit, illogical, irrational belief system.
bpg...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
> So says (rick==Dutch==Erikson==shithead) the meat industry shill.
No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
bpg...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
> So says (rick==Dutch==Erikson==shithead) the meat industry shill.
No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
bpg...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
> So says (rick==Dutch==Erikson==shithead) the meat industry shill.
No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
bpg...@yahoo.com
bpg...@yahoo.com
bpg...@yahoo.com
Ron
Wouldn't it be easier just to answer the question instead of going into
hysterics?
Ron
You don't spend 10 years 24/7 on newsgroups without some form of
income.
Since all you do is disrupt and distort, it's highly probable that you
are PAID by some entity to be here.
Now shut the f*** up and answer my question.
bpg...@yahoo.com
Of course he is a meat industry shill. Why would he post under numerous
aliases and disrupt every comment that promotes vegetarianism and
deplores the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry? Look at
the lists these comments are posted to
(alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan). There is absolutely no
call for him to be here and the only reason why he is disrupting these
posts is because that is what the meat industry is paying him for.
Leif Erikson
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Stupid fat fuck lied:
> > > So says (rick==Dutch==Erikson==shithead) the meat industry shill.
> >
> > No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
> > opponent of "veganism" participating here who is
> > employed by or has any professional connection to the
> > meat industry. We're attacking "veganism" because it's
> > a bullshit, illogical, irrational belief system.
>
>
> You don't spend 10 years 24/7 on newsgroups without some form of
> income.
My income doesn't come from any part of the meat industry,
shit-4-braincell stupid homo ronnie.
> Since all you do is disrupt and distort,
I inform, and I point out what is wrong with so-called and MISNAMED
"ethical vegetarianism".
> Now shut the f*** up and answer my question.
Fuck off, punk. I don't answer questions from HIV+, unserious,
clownish chickenshits like you.
Leif Erikson
bpg...@yahoo.com
So says (rick==Dutch==Erikson==shithead) the meat industry shill.
bpg...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
Wouldn't it be easier, and much more sensible, for you
to get a clue that your question is bullshit, and that
I don't waste time answering questions from HIV+
clownish fuckwits, and that you'd be better off taking
your drugs so you don't get sick and die?
You fucking zero.
bpg...@yahoo.com
shrub...@excite.com
LOL!! You freakin' retard!
You spend an inordinate amount of time responding to a "zero"!!