****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:07:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:43:48 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 01:20:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


the fewer livestock that are born the more
animals that would be born.

If so, so what? That's what we're trying to find out. WHY would it
be better?

I'm not an ecologist, but let's agree for the sake of discussion that it
wouldn't be better, or at least that we don't care if there is more
wildlife.

Good.


Now that that is settled, why would it be better for there to be
more livestock? You're the one claiming that it would be better, why?

Better for what?

Better for the animals.


Since future animals don't exist it couldn't be "better" for "them",
but it could be of positive value to them.

No, ****wit, you STUPID cracker. "Better for", "of
positive value to" - these are more or less synonyms,
you STUPID ****ING GOOBER CRACKER. If you admit that
it isn't "better for" the "future animals", then it
can't be "of positive value" to them either, you
****ING CRACKER.

I can appreciate that.

You can't - it's a contradictory absurdity, you ****ING
ILLITERATE.

Something can only be "of positive value" to entities
that *exist*, you stupid ****wit.


You're the one making the restrictions, so what
would you restrict us to consider?

Why would it better *for animals* for there to be more livestock and thereby
less wildlife?

Naturally, ****wit the cracker cannot answer.




So far you won't allow us to consider
the livestock themselves,

You haven't given anyone a reason to consider livestock, aside from the
obvious ones, welfare


How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives?

They only have either if they exist. If they don't yet
exist, and there's no morally important reason *to
them* for them to exist, then you need consider neither.



and utility.


and you probably find fault with considering
human interest, so what would you allow consideration of?

Human interests, the interest of the environment, the welfare interests of
living animals.


How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives?

There is no moral reason for their lives to occur. You
consider their welfare - that *is* their lives - if the
animals exist. There is no moral reason for them to
exist.


Why shouldn't we have no preference? There's all this plant material out
there, we can harvest it and feed it to livestock, or we can let it grow
and
let wild animal populations feed off it. Apart from the fact that we want
livestock to produce products, why should we care which animals eat it?

"aras" say that we should leave it only to wildlife,

Right, they do, and think the LoL is a coherent argument against it, it
isn't.


LOL! Since you are unable to understand or appreciate the fact that
some livestock have lives of positive value,

If they exist. There is no moral reason for the
livestock to exist. You want to think there is one,
but you can't say what it is. There's a good reason
you can't say what it is, ****wit: there isn't any.


and if you're going to
defend that against the LoL YOU!!! need to do it.

Leaving the resources to wildlife and the LoL are not the alternatives, they
are two extremist AR views. One says that there is a moral imperative that
livestock should never be bred, the other, your LoL, says there is a moral
imperative that livestock should be bred. They're both nonsense, there is no
moral imperative either way,


Immediately your obsession with your browny points

YOUR brownie points, ****wit. YOU are the one who
thinks you earn brownie points for causing animals to
exist. You wish to believe you're providing them a
"benefit", an "advantage", merely by causing them to
exist. You are not.


but between the two, the LoL is bigger load of crap.


That's what you/"aras"

****wit's ****ty writing, again. ****wit, you have
been told it is **** WRITING to write that way, and it
is. Why do you persist in **** WRITING, ****wit? Why
CAN'T YOU LEARN??!!


keep insisting.

Because it is so. The Logic of the Larder IS a bigger
steaming load of **** than is the "ar" position. Theirs
is based on bad values but is logical; yours is based
on **** values, *and* it is entirely illogical.


So quit maundering like
the goo you've proven yourself to be, and try to do what you're pretending
to try to do. You need to explain why we should only consider the lives of
wildlife but not those of livestock. Go:

We should consider the welfare of living animals, and of important animal
populations. Livestock are not important animal populations aside from their
utility.


At last you have acknowledged that you give no consideration to decent
AW for livestock,

YOU are the one who gives no consideration to [gag;
retch; hurl] "decent AW", ****wit:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

---

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

---

Dutch:
Don't you think we owe animals we raise for
food decent lives?

****wit:
Not really.

****wit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006


You have NEVER cared about quality of life for
livestock, ****wit. That's just a smokescreen.