****wit David Harrison, hopelessly ovematched, blabbered:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:40:57 -0500, chico wrote:

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly ovematched, blabbered:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 11:26:24 -0500, chico wrote:

Radium wrote:
Chico is ever worse than Rudy Canoza.

David Harrison respects non-human animals
No, David's pro-cockfighting and pro-dogfighting. He's even bred
fighting animals,
I'm opposed to dog fighting
Liar.

I'm opposed to it.

Liar. You used to participate in dogfighting.


But I can also feel good about the care I gave my own game
fowl because I learned to take great care of them
Except they're dead because you put them in a cage with other roosters
for a few bucks.

I've never heard of anyone doing that.

That's what cockfighting is, cocksucker, and you did it.


and hope
that some descendants of chickens I raised are enjoying decent
lives of positive value today.
Coming into existence is not a benefit, Gilligan.

How does your obsession with imaginary
nonexistent entities prevent existing entities
from benefitting from their existence?

No, YOUR obsession with non-existent - but *not*
imaginary, ****wit; you misused the word - entities:

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.
****wit David Harrison - 08/01/2000

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.
****wit David Harrison - 12/09/1999


You are maniacally *OBSESSED* with a fear that
non-existent entities will be "denied" existence. Why
is that, ****wit?