...the "brain" of an egg plant...

On 26 May 2006 19:29:37 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Leif Erikson and David H. are twins, identical twins.

Actually we're very different. For example Goo believes:

"Animals do not experience pride or disappointment.
Period."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
other animal you've ever encountered."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"Anticipation requires language."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"Animals do not experience frustration."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to an entity."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"First of all, life itself - life per se - has no value
to any animal, including humans."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living
thing"

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any
moral consideration."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"NO animals benefit from farming"

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"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."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than
ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives"

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
killing of the animals erases all of it."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice."

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm
animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more
just world."

but I don't.













"" - Goo

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"" - Goo

but I don't. Goo also believes:

"" - Goo

but I don't. Goo also believes:
 >> Stay informed about: ...the "brain" of an egg plant... 

"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148767345.657639.308980@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Neither of you recognizes the principle that animals have the right:
>
> 1. not to be caged or short-chained

Does this principle include during house training? Cuz that would make for
innumerably more homeless pets than already exist, IMO

The rest of the principles I agree with, though I'm not sure the term
"rights" is appropriate.
Tara
 >> Stay informed about: ...the "brain" of an egg plant... 

On 27 May 2006 15:02:25 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 26 May 2006 19:29:37 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Leif Erikson and David H. are twins, identical twins.
>>
>> Actually we're very different. For example Goo believes:
>>
>> "Animals do not experience pride or disappointment.
>> Period."
>>
>> but I don't. Goo also believes:
>>
>> "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
>> other animal you've ever encountered."
>>
>> but I don't. Goo also believes:
>>
>> "Anticipation requires language."
>>
>> but I don't. Goo also believes:
>>
>> "Animals do not experience frustration."
>>
>> but I don't. Goo also believes:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You might have wanted to stop there

LOL! I mean: Since I didn't, what makes you feel that I "might
have wanted to"?

>but the two of you live to produce oceans
>of words which eventually have no meaning.

They will always have the same meaning, whether *you* can
appreciate any meaning or not.

>Neither of you recognizes the principle that animals have the right:
>
>1. not to be caged or short-chained

Well, no, because they don't.

>2. not to be tortured

Cruelty regulations may provide a sort of right(s) in some areas
regarding torture....

>3. not to be vivisected

....and vivisection...

>4. not to be factory -farmed

....and probably even that to some extent.

>5. this list is virtually endless but these are the Big-4.

If you're going to pretend that animals have whatever kind of
rights you feel like pretending they have--when and only when it
suites you to pretend that they have them--then I can believe
YOUR imaginary list could be virtually endless. But it's truly useless,
so why make it up?
 >> Stay informed about: ...the "brain" of an egg plant...