BoatBanter.com - Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should be thepractical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give to animals'lives?

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should be thepractical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give to animals'lives? (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/115661-goo-coward-harrison-continues-run-away-what-should-thepractical-consequence-consideration-goo-wants-us-give-animalslives.html)

Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should be the practical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give to animals' lives?

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.

Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should be the practical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give to animals' lives?

Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should bethe practical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give toanimals' lives?

On 6/2/2010 9:20 AM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison - attempted to bull****:

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:03:16 -0400, Le
wrote:

Could it be that this goo guy is Harry Krause AKA HK?

I don't believe he has pretended to be Harry Krause, but

You are Goo: Goo ****wit David Harrison. This is not in dispute.

Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should bethe practical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give toanimals' lives?

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bull****:

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:34:54 -0400,
wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bull****:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:40:11 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/1/10 10:26 AM, DT wrote:
Julian wrote:
On 01/06/2010 14:42, Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:
Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Goober - always criticizes people

I don't give a **** about him at the moment.
You are the ****wit in this situation for initiating
yet another new crosspost to disinterested groups
to vent even more of your spleen and distress
innocent bystanders.

Julian, Julian, Julian!

Mr. Dobbs has informed us

His name isn't Dobbs.

It is.

that he is not responsible for the
crossposting; someone else makes him do it.

Can you imagine someone else having that much power over *you*? I sure
can't.

He's lying to you.

No.

Mr. Dobbs needs to either grow a pair, or see his therapist more often.

My impression is that if

Your "impression" is that of a drunk cracker.

We have a handful of multiple ID morons in rec.boats, too...and our also
log on with the user names of other posters. jherring, flajim, moose,
loogy, dan krueger, et cetera...all one step down from trailer trash.

Morons, all of them.

The same with

You.

I'm helping them along by continuing their cross posting.

Good enough.

You started it, Goo.

Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should bethe practical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give toanimals' lives?

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.

Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should bethe practical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give toanimals' lives?

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bull****:

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:47:53 -0700, Fred C. Dobbs pointed out:

On 6/1/2010 2:27 PM, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, The Coward - attempted to bull****:

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:52:06 -0700, Fred C. Dobbs thoughtfully queried:

What should be the practical consequence of the "consideration"

People should consider that providing decent AW would be
ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating domestic animals
Goob, including the ones raised for food... In many cases it
already IS ethically equivalent or superior in fact, Goo.

That's not it. That's not the trap you're trying to lead them into, Goo.

Try again, Goo.

That is it

It isn't, Goo.

zennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn [ wazn't Goo-the-Coward Harrison cont

"niunian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:31:30 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"Lee Frank" wrote in message
news:a4adndeQj5USdZjRnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink. com...

"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.

:-)

Good commercial :)

zennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn [ wazn't Goo-the-Coward Harrison cont

Dutch wrote:

"niunian" wrote in message
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:31:30 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Lee Frank" wrote in message

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.
:-)

Good commercial :)

Zen is what you do
when you have no idea
what to do next.

--
oxtail

Goo-the-Coward Harrison continues to run away - What should be the practical consequence of the "consideration" Goo wants us to give to animals' lives?

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.