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.