XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:49:49 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:24:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >There is *nothing* to consider until they exist.   
      
   "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals that are "in the pipeline", so   
   to speak, a lot of consideration" - Goo   
      
   >>>>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)