Goo - ****wit David Harrison - is always blabbering about this. The
phrase, of course, is complete nonsense, and is code for Goo's real
agenda, which is to demand that everyone want livestock animals to exist
in order for Goo to eat them. But even when he attempts to defend his
literal wording, Goo comically ties himself in knots and contradicts
himself.

A thoughtful poster named Robert, who does not appear to me to be an
animal "rights" advocate but who is deeply troubled by what he perceives
to be wretched welfare for many types of livestock animals during at
least some part of their lives, has suggested to Goo - that's ****wit
David Harrison - that "quality" of life, rather than "value", is a
better, more meaningful criterion. Goo, of course, in his typical
uneducated cracker pig-headedness, rejects it. He insists that "value"
takes more than "quality" into account. When questioned, however, Goo -
****wit David Harrison - cannot give a coherent account of what else
there is besides quality of life; all we get is the usual ignorant
cracker bull****. So, once again, we have Goo claiming that he, alone,
can see some "important aspect of the situation" that no one else can see.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison - always ascribes this to (haw haw haw)
"mental limitations" on the part of anyone who doesn't see what Goo
claims he can quite clearly see. This, from an admitted high school
drop-out and goof whose adult employment has consisted of being a roadie
for a bunch of bands no one knows, as well as a general purpose gofer in
a microbrewery. No, I don't think anyone believes that Goo - ****wit
David Harrison - has any unique insight into the correct way to
determine the "value" of an animal's life to the animal itself.

In fact, when Goo talks about "decent lives", he is himself placing
emphasis on quality of life - a decent life is inherently one of good
quality. So, Goo is contradicting himself with his own ****ty phrase if
he's going to pretend that quality doesn't matter, or that there's some
other dimension that relegates quality to only secondary consideration.

The larger problem with this vomit phrase, of course, is that no matter
what else Goo - ****wit David Harrison - thinks "ought" to go into the
determination of "positive value", he is talking about the value to the
animal itself, and Goo has no way of knowing what that is. Once again,
Goo - ****wit David Harrison - falls back on a hilarious claim that he
has some special insight that allows him to perceive what seemingly no
one else in the world can see. No one buys that; it's total horse****.

Even bigger than that is that Goo - ****wit David Harrison - is lying
when he claims to be "considering" the animals lives on behalf of the
animals themselves. He is not. His *only* consideration in this entire
issue is that the animals exist, so that he can consume them. Goo
doesn't care about the quality of their lives, or scoff the "value" of
their lives to the animals; he just wants them to exist, so he can eat
them. The bull**** about "consideration" for the animals' lives is a
shabby, long-dispelled smokescreen intended to hide Goo's only real
consideration, which is his self-interest. There's nothing wrong with
self-interest, but trying to pass it off as sincere consideration for
the interest of others is hypocritical bull****. Everyone can see that
that's what Goo - ****wit David Harrison - is doing.

For those who didn't already know, Goo has been deeply involved in the
past in breeding fighting cocks and dogs, and in the staging of the
combats. Goo has justified this on the ground that the animals would
not otherwise exist, and that because they "get to experience life", it
somehow justifies the contrived combats that always end in the death of
one of the birds, and that always end in no less than the maiming of one
of the dogs, and sometimes the dog's death. Goo - ****wit David
Harrison - lamely tries to justify it additionally by saying fighting is
what these animals want to do, but the fact these particular fights
occur only because humans stage them completely queers that already
specious argument. The point is, no one - *no* one - is going to accept
lectures on "decent lives of positive value" from a dirty ****bag who
breeds fighting cocks and fighting dogs.