****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:37:14 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

"Dutch" wrote:


It's what they want.

Who cares?

People in favor of decent AW instead.

No they don't.


Yes we do.

No, ****wit. You aren't included in that group. You
are not in favor of (gag wretch spew) "decent AW",
****wit, as we've conclusively shown. You are *only*
in favor of continued existence for livestock, in order
for YOU to have access to "meat...gravy." Stop lying
about your motives, ****wit - we know what they really are.




I'm in favor of Animal Welfare,


LOL!!!

He is.


but like all sane AW advocates I know it only applies to
the animals that are born,


LOL! Everyone knows it.

You stupidly wish to pretend, ****wit, that if one is
in favor of "decent AW", one must be in favor of the
animals coming into existence. That's false. It's
also an absurd proposition. There is no moral reason
for the animals to exist, ****wit. IF they exist, then
responsible citizens like Dutch want to see them have
good welfare. If they don't exist, then there's no
reason to think about "their" welfare at all.



there's nothing in it that says animals *ought to be* born.


Everyone knows that too.

YOU don't, ****wit: "anyone in favor of decent AW for
livestock must necessarily be opposed to 'ar'."

You "think", ****wit, that being in favor of (gag retch
spew) "decent AW" means one *must* want livestock
animals to exist. That's illogical and false, ****wit.




Where's the harm? What's wrong with it?

It works completely against the concept of Animal Welfare.

It has nothing to do with the concept of Animal Welfare.


It would make decent AW impossible

Right: because it wouldn't be needed. (gag retch
spew) "decent AW" is only needed if there are livestock
animals, ****wit; no animals means it's not needed.

Stop crossposting to rec.pets.cats.community, ****wit,
you filthy shitbag.

Leif Erikson wrote:
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:37:14 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

"Dutch" wrote:


It's what they want.

Who cares?

People in favor of decent AW instead.

No they don't.


Yes we do.

No, ****wit. You aren't included in that group. You
are not in favor of (gag wretch spew) "decent AW",
****wit, as we've conclusively shown. You are *only*
in favor of continued existence for livestock, in order
for YOU to have access to "meat...gravy." Stop lying
about your motives, ****wit - we know what they really are.




I'm in favor of Animal Welfare,


LOL!!!

He is.


but like all sane AW advocates I know it only applies to
the animals that are born,


LOL! Everyone knows it.

You stupidly wish to pretend, ****wit, that if one is
in favor of "decent AW", one must be in favor of the
animals coming into existence. That's false. It's
also an absurd proposition. There is no moral reason
for the animals to exist, ****wit. IF they exist, then
responsible citizens like Dutch want to see them have
good welfare. If they don't exist, then there's no
reason to think about "their" welfare at all.



there's nothing in it that says animals *ought to be* born.


Everyone knows that too.

YOU don't, ****wit: "anyone in favor of decent AW for
livestock must necessarily be opposed to 'ar'."

You "think", ****wit, that being in favor of (gag retch
spew) "decent AW" means one *must* want livestock
animals to exist. That's illogical and false, ****wit.




Where's the harm? What's wrong with it?

It works completely against the concept of Animal Welfare.

It has nothing to do with the concept of Animal Welfare.


It would make decent AW impossible

Right: because it wouldn't be needed. (gag retch
spew) "decent AW" is only needed if there are livestock
animals, ****wit; no animals means it's not needed.

Stop crossposting to rec.pets.cats.community, ****wit,
you filthy shitbag.


Why are you posting to rec.pets.dogs you goofy little homo goober?

nymshifting impotent homo fudgepacker pantywaist
ronnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton, strung out on crack, whined:

Leif Erikson wrote:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied:


On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:37:14 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

"Dutch" wrote:


It's what they want.

Who cares?

People in favor of decent AW instead.

No they don't.


Yes we do.

No, ****wit. You aren't included in that group. You
are not in favor of (gag wretch spew) "decent AW",
****wit, as we've conclusively shown. You are *only*
in favor of continued existence for livestock, in order
for YOU to have access to "meat...gravy." Stop lying
about your motives, ****wit - we know what they really are.




I'm in favor of Animal Welfare,


LOL!!!

He is.



but like all sane AW advocates I know it only applies to
the animals that are born,


LOL! Everyone knows it.

You stupidly wish to pretend, ****wit, that if one is
in favor of "decent AW", one must be in favor of the
animals coming into existence. That's false. It's
also an absurd proposition. There is no moral reason
for the animals to exist, ****wit. IF they exist, then
responsible citizens like Dutch want to see them have
good welfare. If they don't exist, then there's no
reason to think about "their" welfare at all.



there's nothing in it that says animals *ought to be* born.


Everyone knows that too.

YOU don't, ****wit: "anyone in favor of decent AW for
livestock must necessarily be opposed to 'ar'."

You "think", ****wit, that being in favor of (gag retch
spew) "decent AW" means one *must* want livestock
animals to exist. That's illogical and false, ****wit.




Where's the harm? What's wrong with it?

It works completely against the concept of Animal Welfare.

It has nothing to do with the concept of Animal Welfare.


It would make decent AW impossible

Right: because it wouldn't be needed. (gag retch
spew) "decent AW" is only needed if there are livestock
animals, ****wit; no animals means it's not needed.

Stop crossposting to rec.pets.cats.community, ****wit,
you filthy shitbag.



Why are you posting to rec.pets.dogs?

Because that half-inch weenie you suck, ****wit David
Harrison, put it in the headers of his ****witted,
no-content post.

Go stick dynamite up your gaping HIV+ asshole and light
it, ronnnnnnnnnnie.