"vegan" = NOT better

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing
cracker, lied:

> On 22 May 2006 14:41:53 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On 21 May 2006 16:49:38 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On 15 May 2006 16:45:56 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 7 May 2006 16:52:01 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 5 May 2006 17:33:24 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Rupert" <rupertmccallum RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I apologize if there has been a misunderstanding, but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>not being very forthcoming about what you actually do believe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>================================
>>>>>>>>>>>As far as this NG goes, I have. Animals do not have rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>Never will. And, you continue to prove that point for me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Delusion. If you want to prove that point, you'll have to come up with
>>>>>>>>>>an argument on the subject.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They don't have rights now, that's apparent. If there "is" any
>>>>>>>>>right to life, we have already discussed the fact that you DO
>>>>>>>>>violate it in regards to wildlife just as everyone else does, but
>>>>>>>>>you do NOT promote it for livestock. So. Now we're trying to
>>>>>>>>>find the supposed ethical superiority of your livestock elimination
>>>>>>>>>objective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, I do financially support violations of the rights of wildlife. I
>>>>>>>>do promote rights for livestock. I do not want to eliminate livestock,
>>>>>>>>I just want their rights to be respected. If, as a result of that, no
>>>>>>>>more livestock are brought into existence, I don't see a problem with
>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are you afraid to admit that you want to see no more livestock?
>>>>>>>If that's what you're in favor of--and it clearly is--what makes you
>>>>>>>ashamed to just say so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I've explained patiently a number of times, what I want is for us to
>>>>>>stop violating the rights of livestock. I'm not in any way ashamed of
>>>>>>my position, I'm being completely upfront about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you want would prevent livestock from existing at all, and
>>>>>you are VERY! obviously ashamed to admit it.
>>>>
>>>>It would remove the main motivation that humans have for bringing
>>>>livestock into existence. So it might mean that we don't bring any more
>>>>of them into existence. I am not in the least ashamed to admit this.
>>>
>>> So far you still are, but maybe you'll get over it. You should, that's for
>>>sure!
>>>
>>
>>Why do you think I'm ashamed? What's your evidence?
>
>
> The fact that you're ashamed

He isn't. You're lying, Fuckwit. Stop lying.



>>>>I don't see a problem with it.
>>>
>>> You need to just say that you don't want livestock to live at all, regardless
>>>of how good their lives could be, and regardless of whether or not it would
>>>be better for the environment than crop production. THAT is what you
>>>promote, and you need to be proud of it!!! Instead you won't even admit
>>>it, much less act proud. You act more ashamed than proud of the very
>>>thing you claim to be encouraging! We keep seeing more and more how
>>>pathetic this whole thing is.
>>>...
>>
>>I've told you exactly what I advocate and I'm not in the least ashamed
>>of it.
>
>
> You have tried to bullshit me

No, Fuckwit. He has told you truthfully what he thinks
he believes.

You have claimed not to have heard from "aras" what
they believe, Fuckwit, and even when one explicitly
tells you, you still feign ignorance.

You are the stupidest cracker in Georgia.


>>>>>you should either be proud of it, or change you
>>>>>pov somehow. Don't encourage something and then deny it unless
>>>>>you want to be like Goo. It's one of the bigger reasons for people to
>>>>>think badly about "aras".
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing
cracker, lied:

> On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:32:40 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>
>>....
>>
>>
>>>>Karen Winter wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>>Yes, the one and *only* reason to raise domestic livestock is for
>>>>humans to eat them. Raising them, breeding them, has *NO* value
>>>>to the animals themselves at all.
>>
>>>>Why are you ashamed to admit that?
>>
>>> I don't believe it. I can't "admit" something I don't believe. I believe
>>>their lives do have value to them
>>
>>...
>>
>>Of course they do, once the animals exist. No one disputes this.
>
>
> Lot's of people dispute it. You for one, and Leif for another.

"Their lives" don't have value to them, Fuckwit. Their
experiences do.

You, of course, are trying an inept and sophomoric and
repeatedly failed trick. You are trying to change it
to mean that coming into existence is a "benefit" to
them, Fuckwit, and that by wanting to prevent more
livestock animals from being bred and raised and
slaughtered, "aras" are somehow "denying" a benefit to
some interest-holding entity. You are wrong.

The entity must exist *first* before it can realize any
benefit; coming into existence is not a benefit, at
all. I hope that helps.


>>However, before an animal, or a human, is born, he has no life,
>>and so his life *cannot* have any value to him. Yours didn't
>>either, nor did mine.
>>
>>Everyone else in the world understands this except you,
>
>
> I understand it as well as anyone else I've encountered.

You fundamentally do not understand it, Fuckwit. You
can't. You have no special insight, and you are much
less educated than *everyone* with whom you stupidly
argue here. You don't understand it, Fuckwit.


>>on both
>>sides of the AR debate. It has nothing to do with AR;
>
>
> Neither do rights or anything else in regards to what you
> "aras" would "provide" for livestock.

False, Fuckwit.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On 24 May 2006 14:31:30 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 22 May 2006 14:41:53 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Why do you think I'm ashamed? What's your evidence?
>>
>> The fact that you're ashamed to admit what you promote of course.
>
>I'm not.

You OBVIOUSLY have been so far, including now.

>That's not evidence.

It's the only evidence we have so far, and it's the only evidence
I ever expect to see. You are ASHAMED to admit what you promote.

>> Duh.
>>
>> >> >I don't see a problem with it.
>> >>
>> >> You need to just say that you don't want livestock to live at all, regardless
>> >> of how good their lives could be, and regardless of whether or not it would
>> >> be better for the environment than crop production. THAT is what you
>> >> promote, and you need to be proud of it!!! Instead you won't even admit
>> >> it, much less act proud. You act more ashamed than proud of the very
>> >> thing you claim to be encouraging! We keep seeing more and more how
>> >> pathetic this whole thing is.
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >I've told you exactly what I advocate and I'm not in the least ashamed
>> >of it.
>>
>> You have tried to bullshit me by pretending to somehow promote the right
>> to life of potential beings you want to prevent from having any life at all.
>
>What I advocate is that every time a sentient animal comes into
>existence, its right to life should be respected.

Of course the fact that you contribute to their deaths in most of the same
ways that everyone else does can only make me disbelieve you.

>No bullshitting
>involved. I've told you exactly what I believe in.

You have tried to get me to believe what you want me to believe, and of
course I can't believe it. But you are still ashamed to admit what you really
promote, even though you boast about something you don't. It's quite
disgusting.

>> I find
>> it disgusting! In fact, it's because of that disgusting and dishonest sort of lying
>> that I got involved with these ngs in the first place. I had a very low opinion
>> of you "aras" because of that very lie before I ever started posting, and of
>> course it has done nothing but get lower and lower the more I learn....
>>
>
>There's no lying involved.

Let's forget your lies for a moment and get back to what you actually
promote. Why are you ashamed to admit that you want to prevent the
lives of billions of animals? Or, if you've finally found some way of having
pride in the fact, explain how you think preventing their lives respects
"their" right to life.

>> >> >> you should either be proud of it, or change you
>> >> >> pov somehow. Don't encourage something and then deny it unless
>> >> >> you want to be like Goo. It's one of the bigger reasons for people to
>> >> >> think badly about "aras".
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:33:34 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven.DeleteThis@all.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>....
>
>>>Glorfindel wrote:
>...
>>>Yes, the one and *only* reason to raise domestic livestock is for
>>>humans to eat them. Raising them, breeding them, has *NO* value
>>>to the animals themselves at all.
>
>>>Why are you ashamed to admit that?
>
>> I don't believe it. I can't "admit" something I don't believe. I believe
>> their lives do have value to them
>
>...
>
>Of course they do, once the animals exist. No one disputes this.

Goo disputes it, and you don't understand it. If you did, you would
be in favor of decent lives for the animals we raise to eat, NOT their
elimination.

>However, before an animal, or a human, is born, he has no life,
>and so his life *cannot* have any value to him. Yours didn't
>either, nor did mine.
>
>Everyone else in the world understands this except you, on both
>sides of the AR debate. It has nothing to do with AR; only with
>elementary logic.

I understand it better than you do, because I don't let that fact
confuse me into disregarding the fact that some livestock have
lives of positive value, or the fact that almost all of them could
and should. You apparently do.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, unimaginative pig-sodomizing
cracker liar, lied:

> On 24 May 2006 14:31:30 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, unimaginative pig-sodomizing cracker liar, lied:
>>
>>>On 22 May 2006 14:41:53 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why do you think I'm ashamed? What's your evidence?
>>>
>>> The fact that you're ashamed to admit what you promote of course.
>>
>>I'm not.
>
>
> You OBVIOUSLY have been so far,

No. You have no evidence of that at all, Fuckwit.
Rupie has freely admitted exactly what his agenda is.
Stop LYING, Fuckwit.


>>That's not evidence.
>
>
> It's the only evidence

Not evidence. It doesn't exist.


>>>Duh.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I don't see a problem with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to just say that you don't want livestock to live at all, regardless
>>>>>of how good their lives could be, and regardless of whether or not it would
>>>>>be better for the environment than crop production. THAT is what you
>>>>>promote, and you need to be proud of it!!! Instead you won't even admit
>>>>>it, much less act proud. You act more ashamed than proud of the very
>>>>>thing you claim to be encouraging! We keep seeing more and more how
>>>>>pathetic this whole thing is.
>>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>I've told you exactly what I advocate and I'm not in the least ashamed
>>>>of it.
>>>
>>> You have tried to bullshit me by pretending to somehow promote the right
>>>to life of potential beings you want to prevent from having any life at all.
>>
>>What I advocate is that every time a sentient animal comes into
>>existence, its right to life should be respected.
>
>
> Of course the fact that you contribute to their deaths in most of the same
> ways that everyone else does can only make me disbelieve you.

You're learning from me, Fuckwit. I taught you that.


>>No bullshitting
>>involved. I've told you exactly what I believe in.
>
>
> You have tried

He has been open about wanting livestock to go extinct.
Stop LYING, Fuckwit.



>>>I find
>>>it disgusting! In fact, it's because of that disgusting and dishonest sort of lying
>>>that I got involved with these ngs in the first place. I had a very low opinion
>>>of you "aras" because of that very lie before I ever started posting, and of
>>>course it has done nothing but get lower and lower the more I learn....
>>>
>>
>>There's no lying involved.
>
>
> Let's forget your lies for a moment and get back to what you actually
> promote. Why are you ashamed to admit that you want to prevent the
> lives of billions of animals?\

He isn't, Fuckwit. He admits it. Stop LYING, Fuckwit.



>>>>>>>you should either be proud of it, or change you
>>>>>>>pov somehow. Don't encourage something and then deny it unless
>>>>>>>you want to be like Goo. It's one of the bigger reasons for people to
>>>>>>>think badly about "aras".
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, unimaginative pig-sodomizing
cracker liar, lied:

> On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:33:34 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, unimaginative pig-sodomizing cracker liar, lied:
>>
>>....
>>
>>
>>>>Glorfindel wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>>Yes, the one and *only* reason to raise domestic livestock is for
>>>>humans to eat them. Raising them, breeding them, has *NO* value
>>>>to the animals themselves at all.
>>
>>>>Why are you ashamed to admit that?
>>
>>> I don't believe it. I can't "admit" something I don't believe. I believe
>>>their lives do have value to them
>>
>>...
>>
>>Of course they do, once the animals exist. No one disputes this.
>
>
> Leif disputes it,

Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for animals or
people, Fuckwit. That's what YOU mean by "life" -
coming into existence.



>>However, before an animal, or a human, is born, he has no life,
>>and so his life *cannot* have any value to him. Yours didn't
>>either, nor did mine.
>>
>>Everyone else in the world understands this except you, on both
>>sides of the AR debate. It has nothing to do with AR; only with
>>elementary logic.
>
>
> I understand it

You do not understand it, Fuckwit.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On 25 May 2006 13:36:38 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 24 May 2006 14:31:30 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 22 May 2006 14:41:53 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Why do you think I'm ashamed? What's your evidence?
>> >>
>> >> The fact that you're ashamed to admit what you promote of course.
>> >
>> >I'm not.
>>
>> You OBVIOUSLY have been so far, including now.
>>
>
>False.
>
>> >That's not evidence.
>>
>> It's the only evidence we have so far, and it's the only evidence
>> I ever expect to see.
>
>And it's not evidence. So I guess you haven't got any evidence.
>
>> You are ASHAMED to admit what you promote.
>>
>
>False.

You're damn sure not fooling me simply by denying that you're
neglecting to do what you're neglecting to do. You have a mental
problem it appears.

>> >> Duh.
>> >>
>> >> >> >I don't see a problem with it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You need to just say that you don't want livestock to live at all, regardless
>> >> >> of how good their lives could be, and regardless of whether or not it would
>> >> >> be better for the environment than crop production. THAT is what you
>> >> >> promote, and you need to be proud of it!!! Instead you won't even admit
>> >> >> it, much less act proud. You act more ashamed than proud of the very
>> >> >> thing you claim to be encouraging! We keep seeing more and more how
>> >> >> pathetic this whole thing is.
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> >I've told you exactly what I advocate and I'm not in the least ashamed
>> >> >of it.
>> >>
>> >> You have tried to bullshit me by pretending to somehow promote the right
>> >> to life of potential beings you want to prevent from having any life at all.
>> >
>> >What I advocate is that every time a sentient animal comes into
>> >existence, its right to life should be respected.
>>
>> Of course the fact that you contribute to their deaths in most of the same
>> ways that everyone else does can only make me disbelieve you.
>>
>
>They have the right against me that I not kill them, and that I make
>every *reasonable*, not every *possible* effort, to avoid financially
>supporting processes which kill them. I respect these rights.

No you don't, and you're again not fooling me by again claiming to respect
rights which you do NOT!!! respect. You appear to have a fairly serious
mental illness.

>> >No bullshitting
>> >involved. I've told you exactly what I believe in.
>>
>> You have tried to get me to believe what you want me to believe, and of
>> course I can't believe it. But you are still ashamed to admit what you really
>> promote, even though you boast about something you don't. It's quite
>> disgusting.
>>
>> >> I find
>> >> it disgusting! In fact, it's because of that disgusting and dishonest sort of lying
>> >> that I got involved with these ngs in the first place. I had a very low opinion
>> >> of you "aras" because of that very lie before I ever started posting, and of
>> >> course it has done nothing but get lower and lower the more I learn....
>> >>
>> >
>> >There's no lying involved.
>>
>> Let's forget your lies for a moment and get back to what you actually
>> promote. Why are you ashamed to admit that you want to prevent the
>> lives of billions of animals?
>
>I've told you exactly what the situation is. I want us to respect the
>rights of livestock. If, when we do that, we decide we no longer want
>to bring them into existence,

Just say you don't want them to exist and stop trying to pretend you're
somehow respecting their right to life, because you are NOT!!! You deserve
NO CREDIT for it because YOU DON'T DO IT!!!!

People who are consumers promote their lives. They may not entirely
respect them since they contribute to their deaths as you do wildlife,
but they DO undoubtedly promote their lives while you do not.

You do NOT respect or promote any possible right to life by wanting
to prevent potential animals from having any life at all, and you're a
very disgusting person for trying to claim credit you do NOT deserve!!!

> instead allowing wildlife to come into
>existence, that's fine.
>
>> Or, if you've finally found some way of having
>> pride in the fact, explain how you think preventing their lives respects
>> "their" right to life.
>>
>
>Respecting the right to life means obeying the rule against killing.

It also means that there IS the life. You don't respect OR promote
the lives of potential animals you would prevent from living, and you're
disgusting for constantly trying to claim credit for it.

>> >> >> >> you should either be proud of it, or change you
>> >> >> >> pov somehow. Don't encourage something and then deny it unless
>> >> >> >> you want to be like Goo. It's one of the bigger reasons for people to
>> >> >> >> think badly about "aras".
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> Of course the fact that you contribute to their deaths in most of the same
>> ways that everyone else does can only make me disbelieve you.
>
>You're learning from me, Fuckwit. I taught you that.

LOL!!! The ONLY thing you've taught me is how dishonest, stupid, childish,
inept, ignorant, inconsiderate, etc a person can be Goo. But! If you really
believe you taught me that particular fact, it would be quite amusing if you
could say when you think you did it.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing goober
cracker, lied:

> On Fri, 26 May 2006 Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>
>>
>>> Of course the fact that you contribute to their deaths in most of the same
>>>ways that everyone else does can only make me disbelieve you.
>>
>>You're learning from me, Fuckwit. I taught you that.
>
>
> LOL!!! The ONLY thing you've taught me

I've taught you everything you know about what's wrong
with "ar". In the process, I've made you unlearn all
the bullshit you wrongly thought you knew.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

dh@. wrote:

....

> How can you/he/"they" respect the lives of potential
> future beings

.....

No one can. It is logically impossible. Before
potential beings exist, they have no life, or
anything else, to respect. One can only respect
beings who already exist.

It is possible to value things which exist now
because they connect us to people who lived earlier, and
( we hope ) to people who will come after us. We can
speak metaphorically of respecting the memory of
parents and ancestors, of wishing not to destroy "our
children's and our children's children's" heritage. But
these things exist *now*, and what we fear is not an
actual effect on people who are now dead, or people who
don't exist yet, but on ourselves. The only beings
whose lives we can actually respect are those who exist
now; any effect on past or future generations remains
a form of fantasy and imagination, not an issue of ethics.
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:43:08 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven DeleteThis @all.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>...
>
>> How can you/he/"they" respect the lives of potential
>> future beings
>
>....
>
>No one can. It is logically impossible.

For you. Everyone is not as limited as you are. People
can have respect for livestock to come, and prepare a
decent environment for them, for example. For another
example: they can consider that having a decent life
and humane death is of positive value for farm animals.
That's having respect for living animals, animals who
have lived in the past, and future animals as well.

>Before potential beings exist, they have no life, or
>anything else, to respect. One can only respect
>beings who already exist.

I can say that I respect the life of a dead chicken I
never saw before and still eat of its dead body, just as
well and honestly as you can say you respect it while
refusing to eat any.

Out of curiosity, if you don't feel that we can respect
the rights of animals who have not been born yet, why
would we not be limited in the same way from being able
to respect the rights of animals we don't know even exist?

>It is possible to value things which exist now
>because they connect us to people who lived earlier, and
>( we hope ) to people who will come after us. We can
>speak metaphorically of respecting the memory of
>parents and ancestors,

Dogs and cattle, chickens and turkeys...

>of wishing not to destroy "our
>children's and our children's children's" heritage. But
>these things exist *now*, and what we fear is not an
>actual effect on people who are now dead, or people who
>don't exist yet, but on ourselves. The only beings
>whose lives we can actually respect are those who exist
>now; any effect on past or future generations remains
>a form of fantasy and imagination, not an issue of ethics.

Not to you, because you can't respect the lives of livestock
at all. You can NOT say that you respect the lives of potential
animals that you want to prevent from living. Their consumers
can, but you can NOT. And that is even more true for promoting
their lives. Consumers promote their lives, and ONLY consumers
promote their lives. You "aras" do NOT. If you try to claim any
credit for respecting or promoting the lives of animals raised for
food, you are being dishonest in a very contemptible way, and
you should be very ashamed. In fact now would be a good time
to begin trying to overcome such shame, by confessing the
times when you shamefully tried to persuade people that you do
respect or promote any life for livestock. Have you ever tried to
claim credit for either or both? Are you rightly ashamed of yourself
for trying to claim it, if you have? If you've attempted the claim,
you should make a point of explaining that you made a grotesque
error which greatly disrespects the lives of livestock...especially
to any children you may have lied to. IF there are any children
who would want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with
their lifestlye some day, we certainly do NOT! want them clinging
to the absurd belief that they can do it by being vegan, do we?
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

dh@. wrote:

.....

> If you try to claim any
> credit for respecting or promoting the lives of animals raised for
> food, you are being dishonest in a very contemptible way, and
> you should be very ashamed.

.....

By your logic, only murderers can be said to respect the life
of their victims, and those who oppose and try to prevent
murder are being disrespectful of the lives of those whose
murder they try to prevent.

That's truly twisted logic....
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing
goober cracker who astonishingly fantasizes he can
"respect" the lives of non-existent animals, lied:
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 11:43:08 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying dog-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>How can you/he/"they" respect the lives of potential
>>>future beings
>>
>>....
>>
>>No one can. It is logically impossible.
>
>
> For you.

For everyone, including you.


> For another
> example: they can consider that having a decent life
> and humane death is of positive value for farm animals.

Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for any animals.


>>Before potential beings exist, they have no life, or
>>anything else, to respect. One can only respect
>>beings who already exist.
>
>
> I can say that I respect the life of a dead chicken

Outstanding!


>
> Out of curiosity, if you don't feel that we can respect
> the rights of animals who have not been born yet, why
> would we not be limited in the same way from being able
> to respect the rights of animals we don't know even exist?

You are weird beyond belief, Fuckwit.


>>The only beings
>>whose lives we can actually respect are those who exist
>>now; any effect on past or future generations remains
>>a form of fantasy and imagination, not an issue of ethics.
>
>
> Not to you, because you can't respect the lives of livestock
> at all. You can NOT say that you respect the lives of potential
> animals that you want to prevent from living.

You can NOT rationally say that you "respect" the lives
of non-existent "future farm animals", Fuckwit - "they"
don't *have* any lives.


> Their consumers can, but you can NOT.

No, "their" consumers CANNOT, Fuckwit - "they" don't
have any lives to be respected.

In any case, Fuckwit, you do NOT respect the lives even
of animals that exist. ALL you "respect" are the
goodies you get from them: "Meat. Gravy."
 >> Stay informed about: "vegan" = NOT better