Vegetarian Discussion: How Many Animals Are Killed Every Year In US For Food Intended For Human Consumption?

How Many Animals Are Killed Every Year In US For Food Intended For Human Consumption?
Posts: 26

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2013-03-27 01:30:32 EST
I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
from existence, or "getting to experience life." Existence is not a
benefit. Every thinking person knows this, of course.

Rupert
2013-03-27 02:46:34 EST
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:30:32 AM UTC, George Plimpton wrote:
> I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>
> from existence, or "getting to experience life." Existence is not a
>
> benefit. Every thinking person knows this, of course.

It's about 9 billion, I think.

L*@Lu.
2013-03-27 14:32:09 EST
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:

>I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>from existence, or "getting to experience life."

Some benefitted from lives of positive value and some suffered through lives
of negative value Goob. That's the most basic aspect of the whole issue but you
can't even get that "far" with it, Goo.


L*@Lu.
2013-03-27 14:32:25 EST
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:46:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:30:32 AM UTC, Goo wrote:
>> I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>>
>> from existence, or "getting to experience life." Existence is not a
>>
>> benefit. Every thinking person knows this, of course.
>
>It's about 9 billion, I think.

That means billions of them getting to benefit from lives
of positive value :-) But there are also billions suffering through lives of
negative value. :-( It's too bad for all of them that no one much gives a shit,
imo.

George Plimpton
2013-03-27 14:59:03 EST
On 3/27/2013 11:32 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:46:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:30:32 AM UTC, Goo wrote:
>>> I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>>>
>>> from existence, or "getting to experience life." Existence is not a
>>>
>>> benefit. Every thinking person knows this, of course.
>>
>> It's about 9 billion, I think.
>
> That means billions of them getting to benefit from

*NOT* from existence, *Goo*. Existence - "getting to experience life" -
is not a benefit, *Goo*. Proved.

George Plimpton
2013-03-27 14:59:04 EST
On 3/27/2013 11:32 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 3/26/2013 10:30 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>> I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>> from existence, or "getting to experience life." Existence is not a
>> benefit. Every thinking person knows this, of course.
>
> Some benefitted from

*NONE* benefited from coming into existence, *Goo* - proved.


Dutch
2013-03-27 20:57:34 EST
Lu@Lu. wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:46:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:30:32 AM UTC, Goo wrote:
>>> I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>>>
>>> from existence, or "getting to experience life." Existence is not a
>>>
>>> benefit. Every thinking person knows this, of course.
>>
>> It's about 9 billion, I think.
>
> That means billions of them getting to benefit from lives
> of positive value :-) But there are also billions suffering through lives of
> negative value. :-( It's too bad for all of them that no one much gives a shit,
> imo.
>

You don't give a shit, you've admitted it. You spend all your time
trying to rationalize that at least they get to experience life.

Rupert
2013-03-28 12:09:11 EST
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:32:25 PM UTC, L...@Lu. wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:46:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:30:32 AM UTC, Goo wrote:
>
> >> I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>
> >>
>
> >> from existence, or "getting to experience life." Existence is not a
>
> >>
>
> >> benefit. Every thinking person knows this, of course.
>
> >
>
> >It's about 9 billion, I think.
>
>
>
> That means billions of them getting to benefit from lives
>
> of positive value :-) But there are also billions suffering through lives of
>
> negative value. :-( It's too bad for all of them that no one much gives a shit,
>
> imo.

Do you have any thoughts on how we would go about determining which of them had lives of positive value?

D*@.
2013-03-28 17:52:44 EST
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:57:34 -0700, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

>*u@Lu. wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:46:34 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:30:32 AM UTC, Goo wrote:
>>>> I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>>>>
>>>> from existence, or "getting to experience life." Existence is not a
>>>>
>>>> benefit. Every thinking person knows this, of course.
>>>
>>> It's about 9 billion, I think.
>>
>> That means billions of them getting to benefit from lives
>> of positive value :-) But there are also billions suffering through lives of
>> negative value. :-( It's too bad for all of them that no one much gives a shit,
>> imo.
>>
>
>You don't give a shit, you've admitted it. You spend all your time
>trying to rationalize that at least they get to experience life.

You still need to explain how you want people to think anti-consideration is
better than having consideration and what it's better for. So far it ONLY
appears better for eliminationists and not for anything else. Try explaining
what other than eliminationists you want people to think anti-consideration is
better for. Go:

D*@.
2013-03-28 17:53:38 EST
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:59:04 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:32:09 -0400, Lu@Lu. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know the answer, but I do know that not one of them "benefited"
>>>from existence, or "getting to experience life."
>>
>> Some benefitted from lives of positive value and some suffered through lives
>>of negative value Goob. That's the most basic aspect of the whole issue but you
>>can't even get that "far" with it, Goo.
>
>*NONE* benefited

Some benefitted from lives of positive value and some suffered through lives
of negative value Goob. That's the most basic aspect of the whole issue but you
can't even get that "far" with it, Goo.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron