"Fred C. Dobbs" wrote in
message
m...
Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Goober - always
criticizes people, mostly "animal rights activists", for
not giving the lives of livestock animals what Goo feels
is the proper "consideration". This shrill, harping
criticism usually is found along with Goo's incoherent
bull**** about "decent lives of positive value". There
are always major problems with Goo's blabbering, and this
one is no exception.

First, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Goober - has
never meaningfully explained what this "consideration" is,
nor why it is owed, nor to whom it is owed. It is
virtually a certainty that he is unable to do so. He's
making a moral criticism of people on the basis of
something utterly incoherent.

Secondly, Goo - that's ****wit David Harrison, THE
Goober - has never said what the practical consequence of
this "consideration" should be. Suppose an "animal rights
activist", who believes livestock animals should not
exist, does a comprehensive survey of beef cattle, and
reaches the conclusion: "Yep - most of them appear to me
to have, for the greater part of their lives, 'decent
lives of positive value'", whatever the **** that is
supposed to mean. Suppose further that this "ara" /still/
thinks the human use of animals, particularly killing them
in order to eat them, is inherently wrong. What then?
The "ara" has given the animals all the "consideration"
Goo demands - what is he supposed to /do/ once he's given
the consideration? Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE
Goober - never says.

Of course, it's completely obvious where Goo is trying to
lead people with this horse**** "consideration" talk. He
expects them to drop their opposition to livestock
husbandry (Goo does not know the meaning of the word
husbandry, but never mind that) and conclude that it is
"good", or at least "not bad", for livestock animals to be
bred into existence in order for humans to kill them and
eat them. But he's given them no basis for changing their
thinking. If the "ara" believes that it is inherently
wrong for humans to breed animals into existence in order
to kill them for our consumption, then the consideration
of their "decent lives of positive value" is pointless;
and if she doesn't believe that, but does believe that
their treatment at the end of their lives in most cases is
so bad that it *outweighs* all the goodness in their lives
up to the end, then there /still/ won't be any practical
consequence deriving from their "consideration".

It's completely obvious that Goo - ****wit David Harrison,
THE Goober - has never really moved away from his original
postition from over 10 years ago:

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.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****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.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999

That is, Goo is *STILL* assigning some kind of interest,
today, to animals that don't yet exist. He *STILL*
believes that anyone who thinks no more livestock animals
should exist is being "unfair" to non-existent animals;
wants to "deprive" non-existent animals of something;
wants to "deny" them something to which Goo feels they are
entitled. In short, Goo - ****wit David Harrison -
*still* believes that "aras" want to impose some "loss" on
non-existent animals:

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.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

Because Goo - ****wit - is embarrassed by the ridicule and
derision that his absurd, publicly expressed beliefs bring
down on him, he lies and says that these things he freely
wrote are "mistakes" of terminology. None of these things
Goo has written are mistakes of terminology - they are
mistakes of Goo's thinking. His thinking and beliefs
about this are based on absurdity and nonsense, and so
they are irrational to the point of insanity.

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?
(where non-existence = imaginary), or.... no, i can't think
of third option yet without clarification of 1 and 2....

or, clarification of what aras inherent objection to raising
livestock means for _existing_ animals (as in secondly goo
above)

possum