"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

"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober) is a name dh originally started calling Fred, but
it fits dh better so now they call each other the same name.

(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

dh believes that AR opponents are missing out on the killer argument against
vegetarians, that eating meat results in livestock animals getting to
experience life, and eating vegetables doesn't, in fact they are denying
life to animals that *would exist* if they would just eat meat. One of his
favorite little gems is the notion that Animal Rights is a "misnomer"
because ARAs want there to be no more livestock. He's a real genius.

On 6/1/2010 8:46 PM, Dutch wrote:
"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober) is a name

....that fits 'dh@.', aka ****wit David Harrison, to a 'T'.

"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober) is a name dh originally started calling Fred, but
it fits dh better so now they call each other the same name.

(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

dh believes that AR opponents are missing out on the killer argument
against vegetarians, that eating meat results in livestock animals getting
to experience life, and eating vegetables doesn't, in fact they are
denying life to animals that *would exist* if they would just eat meat.
One of his favorite little gems is the notion that Animal Rights is a
"misnomer" because ARAs want there to be no more livestock. He's a real
genius.

so tell us dutch, how long have
you been interested in zen ?

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:13:23 -0400, "Lee Frank"
wrote:


"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober) is a name dh originally started calling Fred, but
it fits dh better so now they call each other the same name.

(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

dh believes that AR opponents are missing out on the killer argument
against vegetarians, that eating meat results in livestock animals getting
to experience life, and eating vegetables doesn't, in fact they are
denying life to animals that *would exist* if they would just eat meat.
One of his favorite little gems is the notion that Animal Rights is a
"misnomer" because ARAs want there to be no more livestock. He's a real
genius.

so tell us dutch, how long have
you been interested in zen ?

you are filling up space each time you change the topic. try to keep
it inside the thread. we do like to be particular in these matters mm.

"Dr Who Duh" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:13:23 -0400, "Lee Frank"
wrote:


"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober) is a name dh originally started calling Fred,
but
it fits dh better so now they call each other the same name.

(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

dh believes that AR opponents are missing out on the killer argument
against vegetarians, that eating meat results in livestock animals
getting
to experience life, and eating vegetables doesn't, in fact they are
denying life to animals that *would exist* if they would just eat meat.
One of his favorite little gems is the notion that Animal Rights is a
"misnomer" because ARAs want there to be no more livestock. He's a real
genius.

so tell us dutch, how long have
you been interested in zen ?

you are filling up space each time you change the topic. try to keep
it inside the thread. we do like to be particular in these matters mm.

have they invented toilet
paper in australia yet?

"Lee Frank" wrote in message
m...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober) is a name dh originally started calling Fred,
but it fits dh better so now they call each other the same name.

(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

dh believes that AR opponents are missing out on the killer argument
against vegetarians, that eating meat results in livestock animals
getting to experience life, and eating vegetables doesn't, in fact they
are denying life to animals that *would exist* if they would just eat
meat. One of his favorite little gems is the notion that Animal Rights is
a "misnomer" because ARAs want there to be no more livestock. He's a real
genius.

so tell us dutch, how long have
you been interested in zen ?

What's zen?

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:31:30 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Lee Frank" wrote in message
om...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober) is a name dh originally started calling Fred,
but it fits dh better so now they call each other the same name.

(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

dh believes that AR opponents are missing out on the killer argument
against vegetarians, that eating meat results in livestock animals
getting to experience life, and eating vegetables doesn't, in fact they
are denying life to animals that *would exist* if they would just eat
meat. One of his favorite little gems is the notion that Animal Rights is
a "misnomer" because ARAs want there to be no more livestock. He's a real
genius.

so tell us dutch, how long have
you been interested in zen ?

What's zen?

Zen is the Buddhist training of personal wisdom. It's the most direct
way towards the Buddha wisdom. It provides you the peak performance in
a highly stressful real competition.

:-)

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Lee Frank" wrote in message
m...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober) is a name dh originally started calling Fred,
but it fits dh better so now they call each other the same name.

(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

dh believes that AR opponents are missing out on the killer argument
against vegetarians, that eating meat results in livestock animals
getting to experience life, and eating vegetables doesn't, in fact they
are denying life to animals that *would exist* if they would just eat
meat. One of his favorite little gems is the notion that Animal Rights
is
a "misnomer" because ARAs want there to be no more livestock. He's a
real
genius.

so tell us dutch, how long have
you been interested in zen ?

What's zen?

now you're learning

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:46:45 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"possum" wrote\

wait wait - is dhu goo, and goo really non-exists, or is goo
pretending to be dhu, and dhu really non- exists?

"Goo" (short for Goober)

Short for Goobernicus, but even that much honesty is shocking
to see you confess about your hero Goo.

is a name dh originally started calling Fred, but
it fits dh better so now they call each other the same name.

LOL!!! It shows desperation, the fact that having no
imagination Goo can't come up with anything on his own, and also
an extremely childlike nature on Goo's end. It also shows blatant
dishonesty which Goo is certainly known for.

(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

dh believes that AR opponents are missing out on the killer argument against
vegetarians, that eating meat results in livestock animals getting to
experience life,

That's an aspect which must necessarily be factored in in
order to get a realistic interpretation of the big picture.
Misnomer advocates are OPPOSED TO people developing a realistic
interpretation of the big picture, and ONLY want them to focus on
things that encourage acceptance of the elimination objective.

and eating vegetables doesn't,

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

in fact they are denying life to animals that *would exist*

"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"

"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch

if they would just eat meat.

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

One of his
favorite little gems is the notion that Animal Rights is a "misnomer"
because ARAs want there to be no more livestock.

"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - "Dutch"

He's a real genius.

I point out things which are significant aspects of the
situation that you people are opposed to seeing pointed out, ONLY
because they work against the elimination objective.