XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:29:54 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:02:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:03:09 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On 8/2/2012 8:36 PM, Dutch wrote:   
   >>>> dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.   
   >>>   
   >>>Fuckwit thinks there are.   
   >>   
   >>    "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" - Goo   
   . . .   
   >    If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of   
   >    the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see,   
   >    and whose welfare I can affect.   
      
       Your first remark is no less stupid just because you put it before another   
   remark Goob. The stupidity factor of that particular remark remains, while the   
   stupidity factor of you overall increases because you thought you could reduce   
   some of the stupidity of your first remark by adding another POSSIBLY slightly   
   less stupid remark.   
      
       I challenge you to tell us now Goo how you want people to think you "can   
   affect" the welfare of new animals that you can see. Go:   
      
   (prediction: Goo will fail so completely that he can't even make an attempt,   
   though it could be great fun if he would try)   
      
   >Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare   
   >before they are born?   
      
       Goober, you have been manically OPPOSING giving consideration to both   
   existing livestock and potential future livestock for over a decade. Are you   
   now   
   changing your position entirely and saying that it's finally okay for people to   
   take both into consideration, Goo?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)