Re: How Sarah Palin Created a Whole New Generation of Vegetarians

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 Goo lied:

>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008  dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 correctly pointed out:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 a clueless bewildered Goober wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:00:12 -0200, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dragonblaze wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 29, 1:15 pm, "pearl" <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:f5GdnfjWK7iXvorUnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> Fidyl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast 2008
>>>>>>>> I'm going to eat a lot of turkey this Thanksgiving.  I always do.
>>>>>>> 'How Sarah Palin Created a Whole New Generation of Vegetarians
>>>>>>> By Martha Rosenberg, AlterNet. Posted November 27, 2008.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I grew up in a farm, and have seen animals slaughtered for food
from
>>>>>> early age on - around 6-7, I think. Did not make me into a
vegetarian,
>>>>>> even though I knew exactly where my dinner was coming from. You
see,
>>>>>> when the animal was killed with a bullet to its brain, it just went
>>>>>> down with no cry of pain, nothing. It was over in a second, and did
>>>>>> not create an impression of suffering to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>This bull**** claim by the stupid veg people - that if people could 
>>>>>witness animal slaughter, it would convert them to vegetarianism - is
an 
>>>>>article of faith with them, and it is more than amply disproved by
the 
>>>>>experience of people like you.  At one time, nearly everyone who grew
up 
>>>>>on farms witnessed animal slaughter, but the incidence of
vegetarianism 
>>>>>has always been *lowest* among farm families.  
>>>>
>>>>    So has refusal to take the animals themselves into consideration
>>>>Goob. The ONLY people who have reason to oppose considering
>>>>the animals' lives, are people who are opposed to their existence.
>>>>
>>>>>Vegetarianism is 
>>>>>overwhelmingly an urban phenomenon, and always will be.  
>>>>
>>>>    So is the refusal and opposition to considering the animals' lives
>>>>Goober. People who have been around farm animals can easily
>>>>recognise and appreciate the fact that many of them have lives
>>>>of positive value Goob, unless they are literally retarded or
something.
>>>
>>>Nothing to consider
>>
>>    LOL! There is the fact that many of them have lives of positive
>>value, you ignorant bewildered Goober. 
>>
>>>>Yet even the "best" of you people--a person supposedly close to
>>>>getting a PhD in MATH!!!--can't factor the animals into his evaluation
>>>>of whether or not it's cruel to *those same* animals for people to
raise
>>>>them for food. The "best" of you people can't do what the most
>>>>mediocre of farm people can do, Goo.
>>>
>>>It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter how
pleasant 
>>>the condition of their existence. 
>>
>>    So you apparently very ignorantly claim Goo, but since you're
>>completely incapable of trying to explain what you think prevents
>>it from being good for them we have no option but to consider you
>>horribly mistaken and continue to believe what appears most clear
>>and obvious, which is that many beings do. Many don't too Goo 
>>but your sever mental limitations prevent you from being able to
>>make a distinction between when they do and when they don't.
>
>No, it's so.  I have proved it.

    You prove consistently that you can't make any distinction
between when they have lives of positive value and when
they do not, Goo. If you think you can:

a) show that you can make some distinction(s)

and/or

b) explain what you think prevents any beings from benefitting
from their lives

then try doing it Goober, but we know you can't even make
an attempt. You never could, and never will be able to, Goo.