On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:12:41 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
<
bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
>>and
"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives"," - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"then logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo
>> Morrissey is a stupid fuckstain. People who
>> take moral guidance and instruction from rock "musicians" are stupid
>> fuckstains themselves.
>
>
>Wouldn't taking moral guidance from you also put people on the
>fuckstain list as well, Goo?
It would if they believe Goo's lies about me like that I'm a convicted
felon, that I've been convicted of cockfighting, that I've been convicted of dog
fighting, that I'm in favor of dog fighting, that I'm in favor of all
cockfighting, that I don't consider the lives of livestock, that I don't
consider quality of life, etc. The Goober himself is guilty of that last so he
claims, since he claims to eat meat but feels that no livestock animal has ever
benefitted from being raised by humans "no matter its quality of live". In
contrast to the Goobal position I believe billions of livestock animals have
benefitted from their existence, and millions of them are doing so right now.