Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bull****:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:46:45 -0700, wrote:

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 ****wit David Harrison, The Coward.

Short for

Goober ****wit David Harrison, The Coward.


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

It shows that you can't fool anyone, Goo.


(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

No, Goo. It's meaningless.


and eating vegetables doesn't,

[snip staled canned Goo-spew]

I point out things which

You do not point out anything.

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

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.

Yet when I ask you *why* it's necessary you can't provide a direct answer.

It is a *fact* that livestock animals are alive, and the only "realistic"
consequence of that fact is that it implies an obligation to provide them
with good care in order to minimize their suffering. THAT is the AW
consideration, and you provide no reason, no coherent argument that there is
anything beyond that to consider. This extra "consideration" you advocate is
self serving, empty rhetoric.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:16:46 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

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

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.

Yet when I ask you *why* it's necessary you can't provide a direct answer.

The answer is that their lives are more significant than
their deaths.