Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:19:27 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:44:28 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >><snip>
> >> >>
> >> >>>    See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can go
on
> >> >>>about it a little farther:
> >> >>
> >> >>Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
> >> >>
> >> >>-Rubystars
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     Please share any superior beliefs that you have about the issue.
> >>
> >> Please share a well-founded, thought out belief in the
> >> first place, Fuckwit.
> >
> >I think it's less a belief and more of a fact that something that doesn't
> >exist yet can't make any claims on a right to exist.
>
>     Agreed. That was nothing.  Please share any superior beliefs that
> you have about the issue...but by now it's already apparent that you
> have none.

Ok, I'm of the opinion that there would be no loss to any animals if fewer
animals were bred for meat eating or other use. There would be fewer animals
alive, but no animals that experienced a loss as a result of that lower
number.

A life full of unhappiness, such as a dog used in a dog fight, or a chicken
that gets debeaked and kept in overcrowded conditions, is not a good thing
for those who have it. Preventing that life from ever forming by not
breeding the animal in the first place would've been much better, as an
animal that does not exist can not suffer.

-Rubystars