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 16:48:59 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >
> ><[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.
>
>     We agree. As I've pointed out many times, there would be no more loss
> than the fact that we don't raise porcupines for food, dinosaurs are
extinct,
> rocks aren't alive, there is no life on Venus, etc...

So then why do you go on about "Farming provides life as well as death."

> >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
>
>     We agree that no life is better than a life of suffering. Where we
> disagree is on the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming,
> not on the fact that some do not.

How do they benefit? By "getting to experience life?"

-Rubystars