XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn   
   >animals currently being gestated by pregnant females.   
      
       LOL!!!   
      
   "at the end of the gestational period, there will be" - Goo   
      
   LOL!!!   
      
   >>    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.   
   >   
   >Yes, because their lives deserve no moral consideration until they   
   >exist, and then *only* the welfare of their lives, not the "getting to   
   >experience life."   
      
       ONLY eliminationists have reaon to oppose considering their lives Goob, as   
   we have seen and you yourself have demonstrated for us. People in no other   
   group   
   have any reason to oppose consideration of that particular aspect.   
      
   >>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)