On Thu, 01 May 2008, Goo wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 14:06:43 +0900, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Goo boasted:
>>
>>>I've kicked your ass the hardest of all.
>>
>> You've just sung the elimination song stronger
>>and longer than anyone else Goo, that's all:
>>
>>"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
>>consideration." - Goo
>>
>>"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo
>>
>>"Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then
>>having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does
>>not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
>
>
>I've just kicked your ass and *COMPLETELY* demolished your story
Not by anything we can see Goo, but if you think any
of your above claims somehow prevent livestock from
experiencing decent lives of positive value then try
explaining what you think it is and how you think it does so.
|
