On 22 Aug 2006 13:03:02 GMT, Terri <Terri.TakeThisOut@micron.net> wrote:
>"Pat" <groups.TakeThisOut@artisticphotography.us> wrote in
>news:1156102900.237981.102320@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Maybe not following things here in misc.rural, but I think your quote
>> in another group of:
>snipped
>The problem ( besides you quoting that which a great many of us
>have already killfiled) is that you are responding to (as I am) a number
>cross-posted ngs that have nothing to do with misc.rural
The thread is questioning whether or not anyone believes Goo's
claim regarding his reputation. Since the Goober is known in several
groups--one being misc.rural--the question was asked in several groups.
>added in
>by the same people who always do this, spending their days squabbling
>about the same things they always squabble about for years on end.
Now you're referring to the question of whether or not animals raised
for food ever have lives of positive value, and "aras" insist that they don't:
"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
and insist that their lives should never be taken into consideration when
considering food choices and/or human influence on animals:
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
*because* doing so could create the impression that providing decent
lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could be ethically
equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".
>I've seen people who persist in quoting and playing with these types
It's useful to present some quotes of "aras", so people can judge for
themselves whether they feel the "aras" are the authorities on animals
they consider themselves to be, or not:
"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo
"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
.. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo
"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo
"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo
"Anticipation requires language." - Goo
"No animals anticipate." - Goo
"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo
"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo
"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo
"The fact of the matter is, with 135,000,000 cats and
dogs in the U.S., the food to feed them simply cannot
be "leftovers" from the animals bred to feed humans." - Goo
"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo
"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo
"I'm right about all of it." - Goo
"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
"Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
"I'm not stupid." - Goo
"I know exactly what I think" - Goo
"I educated the public" - Goo
"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
>> Stay informed about: Does *anyone* believe this??? 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
