Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and go..

External Since: May 13, 2004 Posts: 45

JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
legitimate questions.

Jethro wrote,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?

JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
to live" only because they are bred to be eaten. He
keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.

Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:

1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
attention
at all?

2. For whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
in your earlier questions,

"is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
raise it at all?"

"i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

"i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
at all?"

Answer the questions. Don't evade them, don't snip
them out, just answer them.

External Since: Jul 15, 2003 Posts: 586

On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:43:24 GMT, Wilson Woods <shakingspear666.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

>JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
>legitimate questions.
>
>Jethro wrote,
>
> "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
> raise it at all?"
>
> "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> at all?"
>
> "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
> animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> at all?"
>
>He has been asked REPEATEDLY and civilly:
>"better"/"more moral" for whom or what?

I've asked you "ARAs" more than once for whom or what it would
be better not to raise animals to eat. So far all we know is that it would
be better for people who are disturbed because humans eat meat, and
that's probably about the end of it. One thing we know for sure is that
it wouldn't be better for animals...we do know that Gonad.

>Why does JethroUK the coward keep EVADING the question?
>JethroUK the coward also has been asked, repeatedly and
>civilly, why he thinks it is important to draw
>attention to the unimportant "fact" that animals "get
>to live" only because they are bred to be eaten.

Probably because billions of them get to live only because they are
bred to be eaten. Why do you "think" it's important for that very significant
fact to be disregarded? We know why, because it suggests that the elimination
of animals raised for food might not be the most ethical course to take.

>He
>keeps whiffing off and EVADING that question, as well.
>
>Answer the questions, JethroUK the coward:
>
>1. Why do you think your little "fact" merits any
>attention
> at all?

Because you "ARAs" want people to consider their deaths, but you are terrified
if they also consider their lives. You are terrified that people might consider an
ethically equivalent or superior alternative to your elimination objective.

Why do you think your little fact that the elimination of farm animals would
not harm farm animals merits a LOT! of attention, but the fact that billions of
them live because we raise them merits none?